From: Stephen J. Sanders (ssanders@ku.edu)
Date: Tue Jul 08 2003 - 10:35:47 EDT
Hi Ian, Congratulations! (and to Claus also, wherever he is sunning himself...) Indeed, this is an incredibly fast referee report!!! One comment on your reply, dealing solely with style: Your "We therefore ..." sentence can be stated less argumentatively. Since the referee was so positive overall, how about something like "We appreciate the referee pointing out the new Arsene et al. reference, but conclude that our current calculations using the larger cross section value is less likely to lead to confusion in comparing results of the different experiments. " ....steve On Tuesday, July 8, 2003, at 07:58 AM, Ian Bearden wrote: > Dear Collaborators, > Here is my proposed answer to Dr. Malenfant. In the absence of > comments, I will send this at 1200 EDT today. > Best regards, > Ian Bearden > __________________________________________________ > > Dear Dr. Malenfant, > We are very pleased both with the fantastic response time and with the > very positive referee report. > We have read the lecture notes referred to by referee A. The value of > 42 mb for the inelastic pp cross section at 200 GeV (center of mass > energy) is the current best estimate (cf. Particle Data Book). This > value includes, of course, diffractive processes. In our work (I. > Arsene et al. LG8974) we have used published pbar+p data (from UA1) as > a reference, and have compared this to the published p+p data from STAR > and find excellent agreement. We have no reason to doubt that the UA1 > and STAR collaborations have corrected appropriately for trigger > inefficiencies (which would correctly take care of the diffractive > events). > We therefore see no reason to alter the text of our manuscript, and > hope that it can proceed rapidly toward publication. > Sincerly, > Ian Bearden > on behalf of the BRAHMS collaboration >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 08 2003 - 10:36:41 EDT