Hi Jeroen,

Some of the comments are well-answered, especially some which were truly problems by the look of it, and they are going to take another look at the plotting, which is often the most difficult thing to change.

I don't like the attitude of "leave it to the EB", though, since I don't think this is a job for the EB to do everything that the proponents claim here.

With regards to the methods of background subtraction, and other systematic queries, having gone through this myself, it seems that a lot of our collaborators prefer wildly over-estimated systematics to feel confident in a result, so I'm not surprised that the proponents now can't very well justify their systematics.

From the responses to some of the other questions it would seem to me that certain sentences were similarly mollified/compromised in the initial review...

I would suggest a reply is required which picks up on just a few of the questions you feel are important, and ignored, and be clear which questions you think require a textual change rather than just a reply (and if possible suggest an alternative you would be happy with).

E.g.: If a mass fit is shown with a huge difference to the PDG central mass, it must be explained in the caption "mass scale not calibrated" or "mass scale approximate".

Thanks,

Rob

------------------------------------------ Robert Lambert FOM-VU-NIKHEF-Bfys LHCb Email: rob.lambert@cern.ch ------------------------------------------ Nikhef N251 Tel: +31 20 592 2131 Fax: +31 20 592 5155 ------------------------------------------ CERN, 13-1-018 Tel: +41 22 767 4024 Fax: +41 22 766 8109 ------------------------------------------

________________________________________ From: bfys-physics-bounces@nikhef.nl [bfys-physics-bounces@nikhef.nl] on behalf of Jeroen van Leerdam [jleerdam@nikhef.nl] Sent: 06 June 2013 10:15 To: bfys-physics@nikhef.nl Subject: [Bfys-physics] Fwd: LHCB-PAPER-2013-023-001-COMMENT-012 (a comment has been made on your comment)

The B0->J/psiK*0 angular analysis proponents responded to our comments. They are completely ignoring everything we said. Should I insist on implementation of some of the comments or do we agree with what they say here?

Jeroen

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: LHCB-PAPER-2013-023-001-COMMENT-012 (a comment has been made on your comment) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 16:09:16 +0200 From: CERN Document Server Submission Engine cds.support@cern.ch To: jeroen.van.leerdam@cern.ch

Dear LHCb Colleague, The comment (LHCB-PAPER-2013-023-001-COMMENT-006) that you made on LHCB-PAPER-2013-023-001 (entitled: 'A Measurement of the polarisation amplitudes in $B^0 \to J/\psi K^{*}(892)^{0}$ decays') has itself been commented on by Alexander Markus Bien [CERN - PH/ULB] (abien@physi.uni-heidelberg.de).

This new comment (LHCB-PAPER-2013-023-001-COMMENT-012) may be seen at http://cds.cern.ch/record/1553550

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