Hi,
I give my comments to the paper below.
Cheers
Jeroen
General:
- Use the LHCb symbols everywhere e.g. for TeV (\tev)
- There is no plot showing the Z mass. It would be instructive to show such this plot.
- At several places (abstract, L241, L481) you write that you know the luminosity approximately. This is strange as we know the luminosity to an amazing accuracy of 1%. Please remove the word “approximately”. In addition, please quote the lumi
with the same number of digits everywhere (preferably 2.0 instead of just 2).
Abstract:
- “The acceptance of the measurement … in the range 60-120 GeV”. This sentence does not read well and has to be rewritten. Some suggestions. Write "The acceptance of the detector” or “For this measurement the acceptance is defined …”. Write “defined
to be in the pseudorapidity range 2 < eta < 4.5 and for transverse momenta above 20 GeV for the electrons ..."
- “arising FROM the luminosity”
- “which is given as the third uncertainty”. The antecedent of which is not clear. As it is now, the antecedent is “luminosity effects”. Suggestion “… , the second is systematic (excluding luminosity effects) and the third arises from the uncertainty
on the luminosity.”
- Remove “also” in “Differential cross-sections are also presented…”. Or move “also” to the start of the sentence.
Main text:
L216: “whose good acceptance”. Good sounds strange here. Not clear what you mean. Maybe use “effective” instead.
L216: “extends UP to”
L218: Remove “particularly"
L226-7: “momentum-analysing magnet” sounds a bit strange. The magnet is not analysing. In the second part of the sentence you say that the energy of the electrons is frequently degraded, which sounds weird. Suggest: “..before they reach the magnet,
and their momentum measurement is therefore degraded by …”
L227: Start new sentence at which and replace “all” with completely: “This effect cannot be completely recovered..."
L229: “In consequence the eletron direction..”. Suggest “As a consequence the initial electron direction…”
L230: “their measured energies” -> “their measured momenta” (we measure momenta; not energies)
L230: Add comma after “Therefore”
L237: Remove “respectively”. It is not needed, since there is no ambiguity possible.
L244: remove “and”
L245: replace first “and” with “, from”. And write “and FROM AN improved modelling…”
Footnote 1: "A decay Z->ee with the formation of ee through a Z” is not correct. The direct decay does not go through another Z. Suggest: “possibly through a virtual photon, including the effect of the interference with the direct decay."
Footnote 2: keep on same page.
L249-252: This paragraph does not work. Sect 2 and 6 are missing. It now reads as if Sect 3 starts with detector and triggers. Suggest: “Sect. 2 briefly describes …” And end with “by a brief summary in Sect. 6.” Also note that Sect. 2 is called
“Detector and simulation”. So simulation should be mentioned in L249 as well.
L254-5: Remove “covering the pseudorapidity range 2 < eta < 5”, since you have already discussed the effective range previously. This sentence only confuses the reader (you do no want to explain why it is defined differently here)
L273: remove “charged-particle”. This is implied by track.
L278: Remove “also”
L296-8: The clause “where E_ECAL, … respectively” can be removed without any loss of information. The abbreviations were already introduced.
L301+303: Add commas or spaces in the yields. E.g. 4,595
L302: Typo “aree” -> “are”
Eq.1: Add comma at the end of the equation.
Eq.2: No need to have periods at the end of Kin and Trig
L327-8: Not clear what is meant with “electron and positron yield reconstructed tracks”. Not needed either. Suggest: “both tracks satisfy the selection requirements”.
L330: Replace “using” with “with” to avoid to write use twice in the sentence.
L338: Remove quotation marks around true. You do not have them in L326 either.
L340: Why not write Pythia 8.1 as in Section 2?
L354: “apart from the contribution from the leptons”: why not write electrons? Suggest to be more clear: “… after correcting for the additional SPD hits of the electrons”.
Fig. 1: If you define the symbol epsilon in the caption, you need to put it in the y-axis title as well.
L357: electrons.
L375: Remove quotes around photon. Instead you could write photon candidate.
L397: Remove quotes around probe.
L401: “independent of y_Z and phi*”. Assume that you mean the same as on L385, i.e. that it is fully correlated between bins. If so, use the same wording here.
L408: “as one of the systematic” -> “as a systematic”
L415: Remove quotes around probe.
L416: It is not the cut that fails, but the candidate fails the cut. Suggest to write: “that it fails the cut on the HCAL energy”
L431: “statistical error” should be “systematic error”.
L454: “included some LHC data” sounds as if they purposely neglected available LHC data. Suggest to delete “some”.
L460: “too” -> “as well”
L470+6: Write Pythia 8.1 as in Sect.2.
L482: Same remark as for abstract.
Fig. 4: Add unit to the left-hand y-axis [pb]. In the caption, last-but-one sentence, remove the first occurrence of “are shown”. Add hyphen in “leading-log”.
Fig. 5: In the y-axis title, right-hand plot add “ / data": In the caption add hyphen in “leading-log”.
Ref 17: write collaboration with lowercase.
Dear all,
We have a paper on Z production to comment by our group.
The deadline is Tuesday 10 February.
Best date to discuss is at Friday 5 February, although
a few of us (Marcel, Wputer, Eddy and me) will be absent.
Does somebody volunteer to explain the paper and collect
comments?
Best regards,
Tjeerd
Subject:
First circulation of publication draft for PAPER-2015-003, Measurement of forward $Z\to e^+e^-$ production at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV
Date:
27 January, 2015 21:35:01 CET
Dear Colleagues,
A paper is available for your comments:
Title :
Measurement of forward $Z\to e^+e^-$ production at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV
Journal : JHEP
Contact authors : David Ward
Reviewers : Marc Grabalosa (chair),
Silvia Borghi
EB reviewer : Diego Tonelli
EB readers : Hassan Jawahery, Nicola Serra
Analysis note : ANA-2014-086
Deadline : 10-Feb-2015
e-group : lhcb-paper-2015-003-reviewers
Authors : LHCb
The following institutes are requested to make institutional comments:
STFC (RAL), United Kingdom
IHEP, Protvino, Russia
ITEP, Moscow, Russia
LAL, Orsay, France
EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland
NIKHEF, Netherlands
Please send any comments via the CDS system. It is the responsibility
of the contact authors to provide replies on all comments
made. Subsequent modification to the publication 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 are
made. As the last step a short presentation is given to the
collaboration and the paper is sent for publication.
You can find all paper and conference report drafts open for comments
via the EB web-page, by clicking on Current Drafts.
Regards,
Rolf Oldeman
_______________________________________________
Bfys-physics mailing list
Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl
https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics