Hi Steve,
It is also fine with me (almost!).
I have only 2 suggestions:
1) Abstract, line 4:
"The particle yields ... are found to increase more rapidly at
mid-rapidity going to more central events than is seen closer to beam
rapidity." This sentence is a bit confusing; one might understand that
we observe also centrality dependence near beam rapidity which is not the
case (we clearly state in the draft that our data indicates that there is
no centrality dependence near beam rapidity).
I would rather prefer something like in the summary (page 11):
"We observe an apparent enhancement ..."
2) Fig.2 is getting complicated with the "connecting lines and
alternating points .." besides the problem of discrepancy between
tiles and Si.
My suggestion would be to show only one typical result (for example the
20-30% cut) in a linear y-scale. The argument is the following:
This figure is just a "technical" figure used only for the purpose
of illustrating the consistency/complementarity between different
detectors (see the text). People interested in our data will rather
take them from Fig.3 + Fig4 + Tab.1. Showing one nice (and clear) set
of data for illustration would be sufficient; we could mention in the
text that the quality (consistency etc..) of the data is very similar
for the other centrality cuts.
Other minor points:
- page 9, l.7 : central event in Pb+Pb --> central events in Pb+Pb
- Table1: vspace (~0.5cm) between caption and table.
Tables are usually presented with horizontal separation lines.
- Fig.3: I suggest to move the labels (0-5%, 30-40%)
to the lower left corner with the corresponding symbols.
In the insert, dN/deta is to be scaled to the number of projectile
participants (which is equal to Npart/2 for a symmetric reaction).
Best regards,
Fouad
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fouad RAMI e-mail : fouad.rami@ires.in2p3.fr
IReS phone : 33.(0)3.88.10.62.00
23,rue du Loess : 33.(0)3.88.10.64.55
B.P.28-BAT.20 (secretary's office)
67037 STRASBOURG CEDEX 2 fax : 33.(0)3.88.10.66.14
FRANCE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, Stephen J. Sanders wrote:
> Hi JJ,
> Welcome back!
>
> I will make the wording changes and post a draft with all of the
> changes that I've received (mostly very minor wording) later today.
>
> Unfortunately, the "procedural issue" that I alluded to in my earlier
> message
> is real. Notification of our intent to publish was not sent to the other
> experiments before Flemming left for vacation. I will be gone until
> next Sunday, so the present "plan" is to have Flemming send
> notification on Monday when he gets back, and I'll submit the following
> Monday (I'll try to post to arXiv next Sunday).
>
> The size issue is an interesting one. We are well over the recommended
> size for
> Physics Letters. However, the journal seems to be willing to bend on
> this rule--Looking
> at several recent issues, I found a number of papers that were
> comparably overlength.
> The Information for Authors discussion presents the size recommendations as
> a recomendation and not as a hard limit.
> I think we are reasonably concise in our presentation and so I am hoping
> that
> this will count in our favor. However, I don't have any experience here.
>
> Hiro has looked at different mulitiplicity cuts: Si alone, Tile alone,
> BB alone,
> Si+Tile, and does not see any significant difference in the dN/deta
> distributions. In
> particular, this does not resolve the Si/Tile "problem". I think we are
> need to live
> with this...
>
> I'm not sure about the reference question. For political reasons if
> nothing else, I think
> we need to keep the latest Phobos preprint references. The only
> reference that
> people can not look up is the one to our NIM contribution. My own
> feeling is that
> this is weak and should probably not be there. My impression, however,
> is that most
> of the working group wants to keep it. I don't feel strongly one way or
> the other.
>
> Regards, Steve
>
> Jens Jorgen Gaardhoje wrote:
>
> > Dear friends
> >
> > I am back from my vacation absence.
> >
> > I have read the latest version of the mult. paper.
> >
> > I like what I see and would urge submittal ASAP to PLB. I suppose that
> > the length requirements have been checked.
> >
> > A.
> > A few comments of small importance:
> > p. 4, para 2: The quoted pseudo... -> THis pseudorapidity coverage
> > reflects the geometrical coverage of the array and the extended range
> > ...
> >
> > p 6 para 3 l-6 from bottom: remove; also ,before 'be located'.
> >
> > p 7 l 1. two background-> summed background
> >
> > p8 l7: is necessary to eliminate -> eliminates
> >
> > p8 l9: Based on HIJING simulations it is estimated that this corresponds
> > to 95% of the total nuclear cross section.
> >
> > p 9 para 2 l2 : within ... acceptance -> in the range
> >
> > p 11 last para: In summary, the BRAHMS...
> > last para l 4 remove 'apparent'
> >
> > l 8 : ... behavior is seen for nucleus-nucleus
> > collisions and is in fact already reached at the lower energy.
> >
> > B.
> > A more substantial comment:
> >
> > We are all still bothered by the difference between tiles and Si for the
> > most peripheral collisions. This difference looks like a TMA additive
> > offset of 10-15 particles. Thus it only reveals itself for low total
> > number of particles.
> > Does this difference subsist if the centrality selection is made with a
> > 3rd party detector?
> > (e.g. the BB?).
> > In any case if we have no clue as to the reason for this discrepancy and
> > to a remedy I still propose to show fig. 16 as is, and accept the
> > difference as a measure of our syst,. error.
> >
> > C.
> > I thought we ' pluralis communalis' did not like references to
> > preprints etc, but only favored fully published papers. I have no
> > personal problem with such references, but we should not zigzag in our
> > policy. Leave it now and in the future.
> >
> > Steve suggest to submit the paper by Friday: You certainly have my
> > blessing!
> > And congratulation collectively for a godd job!
> >
> > cheers
> > JJ
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________
> > JENS JORGEN GAARDHOJE
> > Assoc. Prof. of Physics, Dr. Scient.
> >
> > Niels Bohr Institute,
> > University of Copenhagen
> > Blegdamsvej 17, 2100 Copenhagen
> > Denmark.
> >
> > Tlf: (+45) 35 32 53 09 (dir)
> > (+45) 35 32 52 09 (secr)
> > Fax: (+45) 35 32 50 16
> > Email: gardhoje @ nbi.dk
> > Home page: http://alf.nbi.dk/~gardhoje
> >
> > -Chair Ph. D. School of Physics at NBI.F.AFG.
> > (secr. Frank Kristensen 35 32 04 41, Ørsted Lab.)
> > -Member Danish National Commission for UNESCO
> > (secr. Ulla Holm 35 32 52 72, NBI)
> > ___________________________________________________
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Aug 02 2001 - 12:36:41 EDT