Dear Collaborator, Pawel has just received the referee reports on the P/pi Phys Lett B. As you can see the paper was very well received by the referee's, and has only minor suggestions. A final decision can be made by the editors was we resubmit. As you can see Pawel will prepare a response. I expect this can be re-submitted very shortly. best regards Flemming Flemming Videbaek videbaek @ bnl.gov Brookhaven National Lab Physics Department Bldg 510D Upton, NY 11973 phone: 631-344-4106 cell : 631-681-1596 Begin forwarded message: > From: Pawel Staszel <ufstasze_at_if.uj.edu.pl> > Date: December 1, 2009 5:25:07 PM EST > To: Flemming Videbaek <videbaek_at_bnl.gov>, Ramiro Debbe > <debbe_at_bnl.gov>, JH Lee <jhlee_at_bnl.gov>, Kris Hagel <hagel_at_comp.tamu.edu > >, Dieter Roehrich <dieter.rohrich_at_ift.uib.no>, Stephen Sanders <ssanders_at_ku.edu > >, "Zb. Majka" <ufmajka_at_cyf-kr.edu.pl> > Subject: Re: Your Submission > > Hi, > I've just got a response from the Editor concerning the review of > our ptopi paper. > I will prepare our response and eventual modification to the paper > and send it to you for comments. > > Best regards, > Pawel. > > Donald Geesaman wrote: >> Ms. Ref. No.: PLB-D-09-01339 >> Title: Rapidity dependence of the proton-to-pion ratio in Au+Au and >> p+p collisions at sqrt(s_NN) = 62.4 and 200 GeV >> Physics Letters B >> >> Dear Dr. Pawel Staszel, >> >> Reviewers' comments on your work have now been received. You will >> see that they are very positive. I would like you to consider their >> minor comments. I look forward to you submitting a revised >> manuscript and expect I will be able to quickly make a final >> determination without returning it to reviewers. >> For your guidance, reviewers' comments are available to you from >> the EES website. For your convenience reviews sent to us in plain >> text format are also appended below. >> When you decide to resubmit the work, please submit a list of >> changes and a rebuttal against each point which is being raised >> when you submit the revised manuscript. >> >> To submit a revision, please go to http://ees.elsevier.com/plb/ and >> login as an Author. Your username is: pstaszel If you can't >> remember your password please click the "send password" link on the >> login page. >> On your Main Menu page is a folder entitled "Submissions Needing >> Revision". You will find your submission record there. >> Yours sincerely, >> >> Donald Geesaman >> Editor >> Physics Letters B >> >> Reviewers' comments: >> >> >> Reviewer #1: The manuscript by the BRHAMS collaboration (Arsene et. >> al) reports on the p/pi (p-/pi-) ratio as a function of of pT, >> centrality, rapidity and beam energy for the Au+Au and p+p systems. >> This is a very interesting and long awaited >> data set that should be published without delay. They are certainly >> of high value and will undoubtedly afford new and important model >> constraints. This is especially true for the observation that, for >> similar baryon chemical potential (ie. \bar{p}/p), similar p/pi >> ratios are observed for Root_s =62 and 200 GeV. >> The manuscript is very well written and the analysis appears to >> be sound. >> Two minor comments; >> i) On page 4 (right column) starting at -- In Fig. 3 ... baryo- >> chemical should be baryo-chemical potential. >> >> ii) Towards the bottom of page 5 (approx. 11 lines from bottom) >> The authors state that " the p/pi ratios implies that the nuclear >> modification factor for protons and >> pions are consistent with each other at all measured pT and all >> centrality". >> This should be clarified a little to make it explicitly clear, that >> it is the separate nuclear modification factors (RAA) for protons >> which are being compared to those for pions at each centrality. >> Otherwise there would be no consistency. >> >> iii) It would help if these authors use line numbers in future >> manuscripts ie. it helps to accurate specification of comments. >> >> >> >> >> Reviewer #2: The submitted manuscript entitled "Rapidity dependence >> of the proton-to-pion ratio in Au+Au and p+p collisions at 62.4 and >> 200 GeV" presents an extremely important and timely result of high >> relevance to the field of relativistic heavy ion collisions. The >> fact that the proton-to-pion ratios at mid-rapidity reaches/exceeds >> unity at "intermediate pT" in heavy ion collisions is a major >> result from RHIC. Understanding the evolution of the baryon-to- >> meson ratios with pseudorapidity and system size is of great >> interest to the whole field. The experimental results, submitted >> by the BRAHMS collaboration, contain unique data at forward >> pseudorapidity and appear to be of very high scientific quality. >> The introduction did a nice job of providing a background for the >> relevance of the results as well as motivating the physics that the >> measurement will address. >> The brief experimental setup discussion was appropriate, providing >> the most relevant information in terms of detector type and >> coverage, as well as giving references to additional details. >> The discussion of the analysis was generally clear. At first read, >> the following sentence seemed to utilize somewhat unusual wording: >> "It is found that the pion inefficiency is equal to unity at the >> pion threshold (~ 2.3 GeV/c) and rapidly decreases at larger >> momenta reaching a constant value of about 3% around 4 GeV/c." On >> further thought there did appear to be some logic in using the >> wording of "a pion inefficiency ... equal to unity ... rapidly >> decreasing" since this discussion was related to the contamination, >> thus there is no concrete suggestion for a wording change. Perhaps >> on further reflection the authors will find a better way, but if >> the reader pays attention this should be clear. >> >> The authors made the right choice of not applying corrections for >> the weak decays to the published data, thus keeping the results as >> close as possible to the actual experimental measurement. However, >> it would be nice if the authors could include a bit more details of >> the cuts utilized in the data analysis to limit the effects of feed- >> down on particle yields. There is only one relatively vague >> sentence given: "The range of the cut is related to the uncertainty >> of the particle track projection to the event vertex." The >> authors do include a somewhat detailed listing of their estimates >> of the effect of the contamination on the proton/pion results using >> a particular model calculation (AMPT), but it is not clear how >> dependent these results are on the AMPT model. It would strengthen >> the paper if these two points could be clarified. It was also not >> completely clear if these contamination estimates were, or were >> not, included in the systematic bands presented on later figures. >> The results were well presented, and the choice of figures clearly >> illustrated the physics points being brought forth in the >> manuscript. One (minor) visual item that stood out in the review >> copy of the manuscript is that Figure 1 and Figure 2 were different >> sized - even though both were six-panel figures of the proton/pion >> ratios (Fig 1 for p/pi-plus and Fig 2 for pbar/pi-minus) for >> exactly the same pseudorapidity bins. >> Although this is primarily an experimental results manuscript, >> comparisons of the central Au+Au results to two models was >> included. Although these types of comparisons will undoubtedly >> change over time as the models evolve, this is still useful to show >> where things currently stand and Figure 5 will likely serve to >> motivate further theoretical work. I found this figure useful >> primarily for clearly showing the evolution of the data from mid- >> rapidity out to large pseudorapidity. >> The summary was concise and touched on all of the major physics >> points discussed in the manuscript. >> This is a quality manuscript and meets the high standards of >> Physics Letters B. The authors may wish to consider minor >> modifications as outlined above, but it is not required. I >> recommend publication of this manuscript. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ Brahms-l mailing list Brahms-l_at_lists.bnl.gov https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/brahms-lReceived on Tue Dec 01 2009 - 18:46:15 EST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue Dec 01 2009 - 18:47:17 EST