[Brahms-l] Fwd: Your_manuscript LA11364 Arsene

Dear Collaborators,
The comments from the referees to our pp (2005) paper submitted to PRL 
are in.
I will prepare a reply that will circulate to the collaboration before 
sending it back to the editors before the end of next week. As always, 
your comments and suggestions are greatly appreciated.

Ramiro
Begin forwarded message:

> From: Physical Review Letters <prl_at_ridge.aps.org>
> Date: March 22, 2007 3:53:50 PM EDT
> To: debbe_at_bnl.gov
> Subject: Your_manuscript LA11364 Arsene
>
> Re: LA11364
>     Production of mesons and baryons at high rapidity and high $p_T$
>     in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 200 GeV
>     by I. Arsene, I.G. Bearden, D. Beavis, S. Bekele, C. Besliu, et al.
>
> Dr. R. Debbe
> Bldg 510D
> Brookhaven National Laboratory
> Upton NY, 11973
>
> Dear Dr. Debbe,
>
> The above manuscript has been reviewed by our referees.  We ask you
> to consider the enclosed comments from the reports.
>
> While we cannot make a definite commitment, the probable course of
> action if you choose to resubmit is indicated below.
>
> ( ) Acceptance, if the editors can judge that all or most of the
>     criticism has been met.
>
> (X) Return to the previous referee(s) for review if available.
>
> ( ) Submittal to new referee(s) for review.
>
> With any resubmittal, please include a summary of changes made
> and a brief response to all recommendations and criticisms.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Christopher Wesselborg
> Senior Assistant Editor
> Physical Review Letters
> Email: prl_at_ridge.aps.org
> Fax: 631-591-4141
> http://prl.aps.org/
>
> P.S. We regret the delay in the review process.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Report of Referee A -- LA11364/Arsene
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>  This paper reports on very significant measurements of the
>  transverse momentum distributions of light-quark mesons and
>  baryons in a new kinematic range at RHIC, including data at
>  fixed and moderately large rapidity.  These data are an important
>  extension by the BRAHMS collaboration of observations the Phenix
>  and Star Collaborations, particularly in the inclusion of protons
>  and antiprotons at high rapidity.  Of particular interest is the
>  contrast between the success of NLO QCD predictions for the mesons
>  and their failure for baryons.
>
>  As a purely experimental presentation, the results above are
>  quite interesting, in addition to the comparison with NLO.
>  The description of the data, and references to the theory, however,
>  could be improved significantly in several places.
>
>  1)  On a sentence extending from page 3 to page 4 of the manuscript,
>  and again on page 7, the authors present an opinion on the
>  reason for the failure of NLO QCD with the parton distributions
>  and fragmentation functions they tested.  Quoting from the latter
>  instance,  ". . . because it [NLO QCD] does not include the effects
>  of baryon transport . . . "
>
>  Recommendation: this sentence could be acceptable if the word
>  "perhaps" were inserted before "because".  There is apparently
>  no room in this format for the discussion of options other than
>  baryon transport, even if they could be ruled out.   In fact,
>  it's not completely clear what they mean by "baryon transport"
>  in this context.  It should be defined.  A similar modification
>  of the earlier statement on transport is also in order.
>
>  2)  The claim of complete dominance by "gluon baryon pair production
>  ..." in the caption for Fig. 3 then needs elaboration.    Is this
>  the case for all fragmentation sets, and is it a matter of a factor
>  of 10 or 5, or what?  Also, given the failure of one of the modern
>  fragmentation functions by a factor of 10, one wonders how strong
>  are the physics conclusions that can be reached on the basis of
>  the baryon contributions from any of these sets.
>
>  Recommendation:  we need a much clearer presentation of how the
>  fragmentation functions were used, and why, in the main text.
>
>  3) CTEQ6 parton distributions should be referenced.
>
>  4) Some indication is needed of the motivation for and origin of
>  the "modifications" to fragmentation functions described in the
>  middle of page 6.  Is a reference in order, or is this the first
>  time these modifications were ever done?  Why have the authors
>  chosen these specific multiplication factors of 1+z and 1-z?
>
>  4)  In Fig. 1, the caption states that errors are statistical.
>  I didn't see a presentation of systematic errors in the figures,
>  even though they are clearly of interest. Could they be different
>  for protons and antiprotons? Presumably not, but it might be nice
>  to have this said explicitly. Also the meaning of the shaded
>  regions in Fig. 2 needs some explanation.
>
>  These points should be addressed.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Report of Referee B -- LA11364/Arsene
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The article presented is well written and presents unique data
> concerning identified particle spectra at high rapidities, with
> implications on perturbative QCD and, in particular, fragmentation
> functions. It thus provides necessary input for an improved
> understanding of the fragmentation in p+p collisions at RHIC energy
> and is, as such, of broad enough interest to be published in PRL.
>
> I have some minor questions and remarks which could help to improve
> the manuscript with respect to a better understanding:
>
> 1. Page 4, paragraph 3, line 4: It is stated that the minimum bias
> trigger cross section is "estimated". On what basis is this done?
>
> 2. Page 5, paragraph 1, line 2: The track reconstruction efficiencies
> were extracted from the data. How is this done? I understand that
> there is not much space for detailed technical explanations in a PRL,
> but it would be nice to at least get an idea of the procedure.
>
> 3. Page 5, paragraph 3, line 3: The pi-/pi+ ratio at y=2,95 (fig. 2,
> upper left) is not "falling steadily". There is a  feature from
> roughly pt = 1.5 to 3.5 GeV, which is beyond statistical errors. This
> is not seen at y=3.3. Can you comment on that?
>
> 4. Figure 2 (lower left panel): There is a patten in the p/pi+
> ratio at y = 2.95 which is not present at y=3.3 (lower right
> panel). Interestingly, it is again in the pt range 1.5 - 2.5. There
> is no mentioning in the text about this structure. Can it be
> attributed to the pi+ spectrum, entering in the denominator in
> both ratios?
>
> 5. Figure 3: Data are compared to NLO pQCD for y=2.95. Are the
> findings at y=3.3 similar?
>
> Finally some typos: Page 3, paragraph 3, line 3: Period missing
> after "GeV" Page 4, paragraph 2, line 4: set Cherenkov -> set of
> Cherenkov Page 5, table I, title: "absopt." -> absorpt.



_______________________________________________
Brahms-l mailing list
Brahms-l_at_lists.bnl.gov
http://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/brahms-l