Dear all,
We’ve received a reply to our comments. Personally I’m not particularly happy with the reply; although they implemented many of our comments, they replied negatively to a lot of trivial changes that I think would improve the quality of the paper (in fact, some of these are corrections of improper grammar!). But this is the first time I do this, so maybe I’m a bit too negative. Please take a look for yourselves.
Cheers, Lennaert
On 05 Mar 2015, at 12:44, CERN Document Server Submission Engine cds.support@cern.ch wrote:
Dear LHCb Colleague, The comment (LHCB-PAPER-2015-008-001-COMMENT-004) that you made on LHCB-PAPER-2015-008-001 (entitled: 'First observation and measurement of the branching fraction for the decay $B_s^0 \rightarrow D_s^{*\mp}K^\pm$') has itself been commented on by Alessandro Bertolin [CERN - PH/ULB] (alessandro.bertolin@pd.infn.it).
This new comment (LHCB-PAPER-2015-008-001-COMMENT-007) may be seen at http://cds.cern.ch/record/1997592
Best regards, The CERN Document Server Server support Team
Hi Lennaert,
From my side, I would re-iterate on these 3 points:
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) Q: L.142 You say you fix the width of your signal peak, scaled by the width of the signal by data/mc difference. How did you get the width from data, ie. how was the scale parameter determined? We would also suggest then to rephrase "scaled by a variable parameter".
A: we do not understand each other, so to say we fit the MC and get the MC_width then, when fitting data, data_width = R MC_width and R is floated unless we will get other comments for this part we will keep the text as it is.
Q2: We think the phrase "widths of the CBs are set to those from simulation, scaled with ..." is potentially confusing, as the width is free in the fit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) Q: Tab.1 What do you mean with the absolute variation? The caption suggest this is the variation on R*, but the 10^-4 suggest it is the BR?
A: the value of R* can change by +3.9 10^-4 -3.0 10^-4, this is what we mean with absolute variation
Q2: But if the value of R* changes by +3.9 10^-4, then this corresponds to +3.9 10^-4 / 0.068 = 0.57% and not 5.7% ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
L.213: We insist that the discussion on the systematic uncertainty on the pi/K pID efficiency is better placed in the systematic uncertainty section, rather than after the final result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Cheers, Niels
On Fri, 6 Mar 2015, Lennaert Bel wrote:
Dear all,
We’ve received a reply to our comments. Personally I’m not particularly happy with the reply; although they implemented many of our comments, they replied negatively to a lot of trivial changes that I think would improve the quality of the paper (in fact, some of these are corrections of improper grammar!). But this is the first time I do this, so maybe I’m a bit too negative. Please take a look for yourselves.
Cheers, Lennaert
On 05 Mar 2015, at 12:44, CERN Document Server Submission Engine cds.support@cern.ch wrote:
Dear LHCb Colleague, The comment (LHCB-PAPER-2015-008-001-COMMENT-004) that you made on LHCB-PAPER-2015-008-001 (entitled: 'First observation and measurement of the branching fraction for the decay $B_s^0 \rightarrow D_s^{*\mp}K^\pm$') has itself been commented on by Alessandro Bertolin [CERN - PH/ULB] (alessandro.bertolin@pd.infn.it).
This new comment (LHCB-PAPER-2015-008-001-COMMENT-007) may be seen at http://cds.cern.ch/record/1997592
Best regards, The CERN Document Server Server support Team
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
--