From: Jens Jørgen Gaardhøje (gardhoje@nbi.dk)
Date: Mon Oct 28 2002 - 11:53:17 EST
Dear JH
My comments to the first draft follow:
1) All figures are much too small, not least considering that the journal format is substantially smaller than A4.
I would suggest:
- let figure 1 cover the full widt of the page.
- enlarge figure 2
- drop figure 3
- enlarge figure 4 (relabelled to 3) to full widt. This is the main figure.
These operations will require cutting some text away. Some first suggestions follow. I do not address spelling mistakes and language at this point.
0. Abstract.
Text is not consistent with figure 2. I would add points to figure 2 at y=2.
1. Introduction.
Drop the 2nd sentence.
Drop the expression for rapidity loss here.
I lack a discussion of the Bjorken picture here and suitable refs..
2. Exp. setup and Data analysis.
In general you can refer to publications and certiuanly also to IGB's talk (These proceedings). Our 4 contributions to QM need not each describe the setup.
Drop the sentence "The collision centrality"...
Add ref 5 at the end of next senetence. (The 0-10% ....)
Replace details of Cerenkov Counters to end of sentence by 'and Cerenkov detectors [6]'.
3. Drop section chapter 3 and include this in the Results and Discussion section. Possibly you could keep a Results section and a Discussion Section, although all these headings take up unnecessary space.
Drop formula 1.
Start the new chapter 3 with. Table 1 shows.... Then you can explain how you fit the difference spectrum.
Drop discussion of Chi**2.
Separate the presentation of results clearly from the comparision to models.
Make a clear conclusion. Here is the place where i would remember that there are 2x197=394 baryons and try to estimate the rapidity shift.
I would hate to think that the present data inplies as a major conclusion that ' baryon junctions play a significant role in dynamics of baryon distributions'.
A very general (and serious) comment:
Your values and Djamels are generally not consistent. Also rapidities differ between the two of you
(0.8 vs 0.9) and (2.9 and 3.1). I thought this was the same data. (?)
I would suggest that the two of you discuss this and reach some sort of agreement on values to be quoted for the different settings. I will be confusing to the community (and to me) with two sets of results for the same data.
This must be done right away as we are already well past submission deadlines.
I will give Djamel similar comments tomorrow in hand and on paper.
I look forward to the next version to which I shall be pleased to contribute also with more comments on the individual sentences.
best regards
JJ.
____________________________________________________________
Jens Jørgen Gaardhøje, Assoc. Prof., Dr. Sc.
Niels Bohr Institute, Blegdamsvej 17, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Tlf: (+45) 35 32 53 09, secr. (+45) 35 32 52 09, Fax: (+45) 35 32 50 16.
UNESCO Natl. Comm., secr. (+45) 33 92 52 16.
Email: gardhoje@nbi.dk.
____________________________________________________________
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Oct 28 2002 - 11:57:35 EST