[Sane] Modified SANE form factor paper is attached !

[Michael Kohl]

Dear Anusha,

almost there! Here are a few more comments.

Best regards
   Michael


By line numbers, using May 29 version

Deceesed -> Deceased
128 Present present
276 the difference -> a difference
301 W elastic peak -> the elastic peak in the $W$ spectrum
327 XBETA (YBETA) -> $X_{BETA}$ ($Y_{BETA}$)
336 XHMS -> $X_{HMS}$
336 YHMS -> $Y_{HMS}$
343 from the $\theta_p$ -> from  $\theta_p$
348 Eq (4): Delta_p is defined here as percentage.
Figs 3+6: Label says percentage but numbers plotted are decimals
353 azimuthal -> out-of-plane? theta_tar? (I do not understand what "azimuthal"
means in this context.)
359 skip: particles
392 sown -> shown
413 by dividing the -> by dividing
419 to the polarized -> from polarized
419 Do not start the sentence with a symbol
$N_C$, for SANE -> For SANE, $N_C$ is larger and of opposite sign
420 instead -> instead of
421 How was Nc found? Why "1/Nc" (inverse), in Eq.6 it is not inverted
430 on top -> for the top and bottom targets as (55+-5)% and (60+-5)%,
respectively.
430, 469 percentage with errors in brackets (...)%
499, 501 data = plural
I do not understand how "data eliminate radiative tails" ...
529 R -> $R$
531 skip: exact
534 mrad in upright font
536 respectively and found -> respectively, and we found
536 get -> determine
542 W -> $W$
543 which is used in -> which appears in
547 on single-arm -> of the single-arm
548 angles -> polarization angles
592: skip: the (2x)

Figs. 3,6 label: Delta ist in percent. Also Eq.4 remove "x100"
Fig 7 caption: No normalization factors were used ... (really?)
Fig 10 Displaying the inner error bar as 'systematic' is quite uncommon.
The second point has no visible inner error bar.
Since the statistical error and total error is almost the same I recommend to
plot only the total error bar, and mention in the caption that the systematic
errors are very (almost negligibly) small. The total errors are obtained by
adding the statistical and systematic errors in quadrature.
674 Here the text states it *wrong*. The inner errors are systematic errors!
The sentence should be adjusted once Figure 10 is changed to show only the
total errors.

696 Since the sensitivity of the beam-target asymmetry to the TPE effect is
formally the same as in the recoil-polarization
-> sensitivity to the form factor ratio and TPE is the same
697 recoil-polarization -> no hyphen
703 gives the discovery of: I think what you wanted to say is
-> has the potential to uncover ... (but did not find any ...)
721 that used -> that were used


Acknowledgments
Ver. 1: This work has been supported by DOE and NSF
Ver. 2: This work has been support with grants from DOE (DE-SC0003884 and
DE-SC-0013941) and NSF (PHY-0855473, PHY-1207672, HRD-1649909).

[more acknowledgments to be added]






On Tue, 29 May 2018, Anusha Liyanage wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Here I am attaching the modified SANE form factor paper once again for your review.
> Any comments within two weeks will be very appreciative.
>
> Thanks and Best Regards,
> Anusha
>
>

+---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Dr. Michael Kohl, Associate Professor and Staff Research Scientist
| Physics Department, Hampton University, Hampton, VA 23668
| Jefferson Lab, C117, 12000 Jefferson Avenue, Newport News, VA 23606
| Phone: +1-757-727-5153 (HU), +1-757-269-7343 (Jlab)
| Fax:   +1-757-728-6910 (HU), +1-757-269-7363 (Jlab)
| Email: kohlm at jlab.org, Cell: +1-757-256-5122 (USA)
+---------------------------------------------------------------------