Dear all,
I had a look at the paper, which needs some revision.
Physics: L.95: It is not clear whether you do one fit, or 8 (as you have 8 plots), or any number in between. Please specify. L.127: This is the largest systematic uncertainty. What does it test? Your part reco background is separated from the signal. Removing its region from the fit will reduce the lever-arm for the combinatorial background, and so it's the modelling of that which you check. L.135-7: The IP is generally well reproduced in the latest MC. Why not here?
General: We don't think you need to show all fits for 2011 and 2012, and BDT1 and BDT2. What is needed in any case is one plot for both channels, which can be shown at conferences. We suggest to put these 2 plots in the paper and move the 8 plots to additional material.
Journal: That seems to have the format for PRD(RC). Is that meant? Title : with respect to -> relative to (also in abstract) Abstract : with respect to that of the -> relative to that of. with the previous LHCb. This measurement shows that the Next... L.1-17: Needs a revision for English language. I have too many corrections. L.13: pt and y are undefined L.20: Several theoretical predictions of this ratio based on different effective models exist, and vary between 0.07 and 0.29. L.23: statistics -> data samples (and many other places) L.51: the PV? any PV or the one the dimuon points to? L.52-57 needs a re-write. We fail to understand what information is conveyed by the sentence in L.57-58. L.72: (6346,6444) -> [6346,6444]. Many other places too. L.76: put BDT1 and BDT2 in roman. L.82: ; -> . L.84: Remove this sentence. It's irrelevant. L.91: where the pi0 L.92: Cabibbo-suppressed decay L.101: remove "-" Table 1: This table gives too much irrelevant detail. Put the needed yields in the text. BTW, why is that Table here? Fig.1: Error bars -> Points with error bars Table 2: This information is also not relevant to the reader. L.123: The \Bc invariant mass is modelled by a kernel estimation convolved with a Gaussian, as determined from simulation. L.149: number of signal events -> signal yield. [33], [39] Use template.
Cheers,
Patrick
On 26/05/15 16:16, Tjeerd Ketel wrote:
Dear all,
We have an LHCb paper to discuss.
Friday 5 June will be OK, but a bit short before the deadline. If somebody volunteers to introduce it already on coming Friday 29 May, there will be more time for feedback on our comments. Let me know.
Best regards, Tjeerd
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 12:08:01 +0000 From: George Lafferty george.lafferty@manchester.ac.uk To: LHCb General mailing list lhcb-general@cern.ch Subject: First circulation of publication draft for PAPER-2015-024, Measurement of the branching fraction ratio of $B_c^+\to\psi(2S)\pi^+$ with respect to $B_c^+\to J/\psi\pi^+$ Resent-Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 14:09:15 +0200 Resent-From: lhcb-general-dynamic@cern.ch
Dear Colleagues,
A draft paper is available for your comments:
Title : Measurement of the branching fraction ratio of $B_c^+\to\psi(2S)\pi^+$ with respect to $B_c^+\to J/\psi\pi^+$
Journal : PRD Contact authors : Liupan_An, Yiming_Li, Zhenwei_Yang Reviewers : Flavio_Archilli (chair), Andrea_Bizzeti EB reviewer : Ronan_McNulty EB readers : Justine_Serrano, Nicola_Serra Analysis note : ANA-2014-078 Deadline : 08-Jun-2015 e-group : lhcb-paper-2015-024-reviewers Link : https://cds.cern.ch/record/2018187 Authors : LHCb Twiki : https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/Bc2psi2Spi3invfb
The following institutes are requested to make institutional comments: Faculty_of_Physics_and_Applied_Computer_Science__Cracow__Poland Birmingham__United_Kingdom Glasgow__United_Kingdom Bari__Italy__INFN_Milano__Italy EPFL__Lausanne__Switzerland NIKHEF__Netherlands
Please send any comments via the CDS system. It is the responsibility of the contact authors to provide replies to all comments made. Subsequent modification to the draft paper are made in consultation with the reviewers and during the EB reading. Following this, there will be a final meeting of the editorial board with contact authors and reviewers present where final decisions will be made. As the last step the collaboration is given a final opportunity to comment during a “silent approval” process, before the paper is submitted for publication.
You can find all paper and conference report drafts open for comments via the EB web-page, by clicking on Current Drafts.
http://lhcb.web.cern.ch/lhcb/lhcb_page/collaboration/organization/editorial_...
efault.html
Best regards, George
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics