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_board/d
efault.html

Best regards,
George 




_______________________________________________
Bfys-physics mailing list
Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl
https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics



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