Dear all,

This is what I spotted on that draft.

Dear Adrian, David,

Physics:
are 3.05-1.35-1.27=0.43 supposed to be identical to the 0.40 from paper 2012-050?

L.248: This value is from the printed copy of the PDG (which is also what you reference), but the PDG live now lists 0.124 \pm 0.011 http://pdglive.lbl.gov/DataBlock.action?node=S086DRA, which again is not quite the same as the HFAG values (http://www.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/hfag/osc/summer_2015/). Has then been discussed in the review?

General: You use a lot of jargon, especially wrt particle names. Please stick to the PDG. D** is not defined, please do so. Please use the correct name D_{s1}(2460)^\pm.

Also, you never give uncertainties except in the systematic section. We think values should always be given with an uncertainty, which can then be commented on in the systematics section. Eq. L.72, 113,

Introduction : it is not clear what exactly you measure. Sometimes there's mention of 2 channels plus one inclusive, sometimes three plus one. Please add a paragraph at the end of the introduction on what you measure in this paper. L.60-64 can be used as starting point.

Line by line
Abstract: remove "using the ... B(B->DD)"
L.7: A justification on why we want to determine these quantities (NP?) would be welcome.
L.8: Explain why one would expect these decays to be CP even. That seems to be a very unnatural hypothesis at first sight.
L.10: what is "this value"? Above is an equation with many values. What do you mean with direct determination?
L.16: in Ref. [3].
L.18: how is b->ccs an FCNC?
L.44,49: \gevc
L.59: signal selection
L.66: analysis -> paper
Eq.2: rel should be in roman, but we presume this is channel-dependent.
L.72: give uncertainties and cite PDG.
L.75: ... mass of the Ds+Ds- system.
L.84: charmed ?
L.88: remove "fully". background events -> backgrounds
L.90: ... to the signal. Candidates ..
L.93: B^0_{(S)}
L.112: data with D0->K-pi+
Table 1: cuts -> requirements (twice). Why no uncertainties? Why different number of digits across columns.
L.116: why three channels?
L.118: Say in introduction what you do with Bs->DsDs
Table 2: move to bottom of page. Rel should be in roman.
L.123: extract -> determine (also 163)
L.132-133: We fail to understand this sentence. From fitting what to what? What does "in the full data fit" mean?
L.139-143: Too long sentence. We suggest : "The wrong sign ... looks for Bs->Ds+Ds+ decays, which emulate the pairing of genuine or fake \Ds mesons."
L.146: Ds** is undefined. We ofteh write "where Ds** stands for any Ds resonance of mass higher than that of Ds* and decaying to a Ds meson", or similar.
L.155-159: This sentence is too long an unclear. Just say the model is justified by simulation.
L.165: what does "full" mean here? Same in Fig.1.
Table 3: The yields seem a bit squeezed. Is that the usual LaTeX spacing?
L.169-172: Remove that sentence. It conveys no information beyond what is in the peak.
L.174: This sentence is very unclear (what comes from Ref [23]?). Add uncertainties. from Ref. [23].
Figure 2: where does the green cat-head-shaped distribution come from? It's not clearly described in the text.
L.189-195: Are remeasure and remodel English words?
L.200: the knowledge of what of Bs->Ds**D? BF?
Table 5: use PDG name
L.241: from Ref. [3].
Fig.3: Please rotate by 90^0 as is usual for such plots. Also, make the theory marker different. from Ref. [3]
L.246: \cal missing
L.256: what do you mean with clean?
[5-6] collaboration
[17] The template now says "and 2015 update", but that depends on what value of DGs/Gs you use.
[23] The template suggests to also cite the paper.

Cheers,

Patrick

On 11/27/2015 10:13 AM, Patrick Koppenburg wrote:

-- 
========================================================================
 Patrick Koppenburg                            LHCb Physics Coordinator
 Nikhef, Amsterdam & CERN
 http://www.koppenburg.org/address.html