Dear Collaborator, The hard work to improve and clarify the data in the Rda PRL has convinced the referees. As you can see below only about 3 textual changes are proposed, while both entusiatically recommend publication. We should be able to resubmit the paper by next week. regards Flemming From: Physical Review Letters <prl@ridge.aps.org> Date: October 28, 2004 1:28:48 PM EDT To: debbe@bnl.gov Subject: Your_manuscript LQ9030 Arsene Re: LQ9030 Evolution of the nuclear modification factors with rapidity and centrality in d+Au collisions at $sqrt s sub {NN}$=200 GeV by I. Arsene, I.G. Bearden, D. Beavis, C. Besliu, B. Budick, et al. Dr. R.R. Debbe Bldg 510D Brookhaven National Laboratory P. O. Box 5000 Upton, NY 11973-5000 Dear Dr. Debbe, The above manuscript has been reviewed by our referees. Acceptance of your paper for publication is likely, but we first ask you to consider carefully the enclosed comments. Please accompany your resubmittal by a summary of the changes made, and a brief response to any recommendations and criticisms. Yours sincerely, Reinhardt B. Schuhmann Editor Physical Review Letters Email: prl@aps.org Fax: 631-591-4141 http://prl.aps.org/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Second Report of Referee A -- LQ9030/Arsene ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The authors have adequatly addressed all my original comments and concerns. I deem this article therefore ready for publication in PRL. Please proceed without delay. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Second Report of Referee B -- LQ9030/Arsene ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I am deeply gratified to see that the authors of this very important paper have revisited the analysis and found the source of the previously confusing inconsistency. It is a relief to see that the basic result - the suppression of high pT particle production at forward angles in d+Au collisions - still holds. Consequently, I can now recommend that the paper be published in Physical Review Letters. After hearing a detailed talk on these results at a conference, I now understand that the central/peripheral ratios in figure 3 are measured in wider bins in pseudorapidity than the R_dAu shown in figure 2. This is perfectly reasonable because the entire spectrometer setting's raw data can be used for such a ratio, even where the acceptance is very small. Acceptance corrections completely cancel in the ratio of different centrality collisions when data from the same runs are used for both. I think it would be very, very useful for the authors to add a sentence to the paper stating this fact clearly. It will remove any question about the otherwise surprising differences in the statistics between minimum bias and centrality- selected results. Other than this point, I am satisfied that the collaboration has answered all my concerns. I have a few very minor suggestions of wording changes for clarification that the collaboration may wish to consider. In the second paragraph, the sentence defining the saturation scale is followed by an incomplete sentence. I believe that a comma should follow the equation for Q_s^2, and then the phrase "where \lambda \approx 0.2-0.3, from fits to HERA data." In the third paragraph, the sentence about the covered ranges is very confusing. I suggest changing it to something like "The rapidity range in this paper correponds to probing the gluon structure..." In figure 2, the dashed lines showing the charged particle pseudorapidity densities are nearly invisible in a black-and-white printout. I suggest changing them to improve visibility. _______________________________________________ Brahms-l mailing list Brahms-l@lists.bnl.gov http://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/brahms-lReceived on Fri Oct 29 07:55:34 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Oct 29 2004 - 07:55:58 EDT