[Olympus] OLYMPUS NIM paper

Sun Nov 17 20:54:37 EST 2013

Dear Doug,
nice work of those involved in the revision.
Please find my final comments below.
Best regards
   Michael

----

p.1 Author list
as you know I have been advocating D. Hasell et al., where all other 
authors would follow alphabetically.

The problem I have with R. Milner, D. Hasell, M. Kohl, U. Schneekloth et 
al. is the fact that with multiple principal authors listed ahead of the 
alphabetic list, yet another prioritization scheme is required which may 
or may not be so clear.

If it is simply the alphabetic principal list it would be
D. Hasell, M. Kohl, R. Milner, U. Schneekloth et al.

If it is to list the spokespeople in chronological order it would be
R. Milner, M. Kohl, D. Hasell, U. Schneekloth - and one should note that 
the first two deputies would be missing here!

If it is to list the people with the 'first idea' then it becomes even 
more subtle, and to me it is not clear why that results in the order 
which has now been favored.

So, again, I would argue to drop the discussion and only have one 
principal D. Hasell et al. (alphabetic), and the rationale for this is 
because you, Doug, have been leading the effort to get this article ready 
for publication.

Lastly, on the other hand, if there is a simple majority supporing the 
current version of the author list then I will ultimately support it, too.

p.3 lines 23,25: the referencing of the TPE literature: Refs. [32,33] 
from the bibiliography have not been referenced here. I guess the 
distinction between [21-26] and [21-31] was meant to address the group of 
Tomasi-Gustafsson, Kuraev, Bystritskiy who claim that there is very little 
to no TPE. So I would move Refs. 31,32,33 to right after Ref. 27, then 
followed by the group of papers (formerly 28-30). The referencing and 
logics of the sentence in line 23-27 should be revisited.

p.4 Figure 1 see also comment below on references (p.53) - the RB data set 
is incomplete. Is there a reason why some data sets have been discarded?

p.5 Caption of Fig. 2: at 2 GeV -> at a beam energy of 2 GeV
Fig. 2: The history of the grey-shaded band: I remember that at first it 
was only introduced as a legend box for the projected data points, but 
then it was also argued that it could stand for the projected size of the 
systematic error. It is not addressed in the caption, and not in the text.
One could do this at the end of the paragraph in line 35 by adding a 
sentence "OLYMPUS has been designed to measure the ratio to better than 1% 
over the entire kinematic range covered."

Unfortunately, it is not mentioned in the text nor in the Figure at what 
values of Q2 OLYMPUS has been measuring the cross section ratio. Since the 
beam energy is fixed in Fig. 2, the variation of epsilon implies a running 
value Q2, so one could indicate this by adding another x-axis scale for Q2 
(the OLYMPUS data points range from ~2.2 down to ~0.4 (GeV/c)^2).

p. 8 line 108 ... unclear why the switching poses a challenge (because 
PETRA was requiring positron refills). Suggest to fix it at 
p. 8 line 114 PETRA could be refilled -> PETRA could be refilled with 
positrons

p. 8 line 117 to achieve higher average current and target thickness, 
and hence more luminosity (I think the two main points were to allow for 
higher target thickness / possible running at lower lifetime, and to keep 
the stored current more constant, which is better for the detector and 
target operations)

p. 11 line 173: atoms or molecules? The latter is 2x more protons ...
I would imagine that the flow involves molecules however the target 
thickness specifies the number of atoms per cm^2.

p. 12 suppresser -> suppressor

p. 13 line 206: remove: could be maintained

p. 13 line 219: supressor -> suppressor

p. 13 line 221: Fig. -> Figure

p. 18 line 257 missing blank between spectrometer and [39]

p. 29 Figure 16: originally we said that a 'sailboat plot' was to be 
shown. Instead, this is now an efficiency plot. This is already more than 
just a proof that the device is working, it is an analysis result. I am 
not opposed to showing it, although I must say that this is the first time 
that I see this plot. Has it been discussed before at any meeting?

p. 29 Figure 16 title: efficiences -> efficiencies
actually, can omit the title because there us a figure caption ...

p. 37 Figure 21: Numbers and axis labels are probably too small.

p. 38 line 610: The scintillator tiles exhibited efficiencies ...
-> The two scintillator tiles in each telescope exhibited combined 
efficiencies ...

p. 51 line 882: the United States of America Department of Energy -> the 
United States Department of Energy

p. 51 line 883: Nation Science Foundation -> National Science Foundation
in my previous remarks I provided the numbers of the grants. The agencies 
require that grants and contract numbers are quoted in published papers.

What about the German BMBF (DESY) and DFG (Bonn, Mainz)?
What about the support in Italy?

p. 53
Ref. [1-13] The references on the proton form factor ratio do not look 
ordered (well, almost ordered by Q2 reach but not quite). The ordering 
could be simply chronological, or grouped by techniques (recoil 
polarization and polarized target), and chronological in each.

Ref. [14-19] for Rosenbluth-separated data, this is incomplete
(missing:
T. Janssens, R. Hofstadter, E. B. Hughes, and M. R. Yearian, Phys. Rev. 
142, 922 (1966);
J. Litt, et al.: Phys. Lett. B31, 40 (1970);
F. Borkowski, et al.: Nucl. Phys. A222, 269 (1974);
F. Borkowski, et al.: Nucl. Phys. B93, 461 (1975);

see also my remark on Figure 1 above. Is there a reason why some data 
sets have been discarded for the ratio from Rosenbluth-separated form 
factors?

Ref. [13] gev -> GeV
Ref. [20] blank character missing before "arXiv"

Some but not all references have a URL link.

On Fri, 15 Nov 2013, Douglas Kenneth Hasell wrote:

> Dear Colleagues,
>
> 	The current OLYMPUS NIM paper is available from the Wiki.
>
> https://olympus-docu.hiskp.uni-bonn.de/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=publications
>
> 	Please read and send any comments to me not later than Friday, November 22.  In your comments please reference the line numbers.
>
> 	Please give the paper a quick review before the next weekly meeting on Monday, November 18.  If there are any major issues with the paper please raise these during the Monday meeting.  Otherwise send comments to me via E-mail referencing the line numbers by next Friday.
>
> 	During the weekly meeting on Monday, November 25, I will report on the comments I have received and the changes made.  Hopefully we can then agree to submit the paper for publication.
>
>                                                  Cheers,
>                                                          Douglas
>
> 26-415 M.I.T.                                 Tel: +1 (617) 258-7199
> 77 Massachusetts Avenue                       Fax: +1 (617) 258-5440
> Cambridge, MA 02139, USA                      E-mail: hasell at mit.edu
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Olympus mailing list
> Olympus at mit.edu
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/olympus
>

+---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Dr. Michael Kohl, Associate Professor and Staff Research Scientist
| Physics Department, Hampton University, Hampton, VA 23668
| Jefferson Lab, C117, 12000 Jefferson Avenue, Newport News, VA 23606
| Phone: +1-757-727-5153 (HU), +1-757-269-7343 (Jlab)
| Fax:   +1-757-728-6910 (HU), +1-757-269-7363 (Jlab)
| Email: kohlm at jlab.org
| Cell:  +1-757-256-5122 (USA)
|
| Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron DESY, Bd. 66, Rm. 6,
| Phone: +49-40-8998-6406, Cell: +49-171-101-1967
+---------------------------------------------------------------------