[Olympus] Fwd: Acceptance LV16638 Bernauer

[Jan C. Bernauer]

=A0=A0


Party?

Party!



-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Acceptance LV16638 Bernauer
Date: 	Tue, 23 Mar 2021 12:53:10 -0400
From: 	prl at aps.org
Reply-To: 	prl at aps.org
To: 	jan.bernauer at stonybrook.edu



Re: LV16638
Measurement of the charge-averaged elastic lepton-proton scattering
cross section by the OLYMPUS experiment
by J. C. Bernauer, A. Schmidt, B. S. Henderson, et al.

Dear Dr. Bernauer,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been accepted
for publication in Physical Review Letters. We would also like to
bring the appended referee comments to your attention.

Your manuscript will now be prepared for the production process. If
any issues arise we will contact you; otherwise your manuscript will
be forwarded directly to our production department. Please do not send
a revised manuscript or figures at this time unless requested.

Yours sincerely,

Kevin Dusling
Associate Editor
Physical Review Letters
Email: prl at aps.org
https://journals.aps.org/prl/

NEWS FROM THE PHYSICAL REVIEW JOURNALS

Eight Physical Review journals introduce Letters, retire
Rapid Communications
http://go.aps.org/3pWrlUS

Promoting Inclusive and Respectful Communications
http://go.aps.org/2IU1psq

APS paying all APC fees for fully open access PRX Quantum in 2021
http://go.aps.org/2WjdH0H


PUBLICITY:

Authors of accepted papers are encouraged to submit a summary that clarifies
the new elements of the work and their expected impact. These summaries help
APS editors consider papers for coverage in the following places:

- Physics (https://physics.aps.org): Daily news and commentary describing a
selection of papers from the APS journal collection.

- Media tip sheet (https://journals.aps.org/press): Weekly email message
distributed to journalists from Science, Nature, the New York Times, and
many other publications.

- Editors' Suggestions (https://journals.aps.org/prl/highlights): Papers
that are prominently displayed on the journal websites because they are
judged to
be particularly important, interesting, or well written.

- Physics Buzz Blog (https://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com): Posts
covering a wide range of physics topics of interest to the general public.

Guidelines for writing and submitting a summary:
https://journals.aps.org/authors/publicity-outreach-instructions-authors

CONTACT YOUR PRESS OFFICE:
Please inform your institution's public information or press office as
soon as
possible about this acceptance. This office may publish newsletters and
reports
describing your institution's research or it may keep lists of papers
published
in major journals. In some cases the writers may want to publicize your work
with the local media, and they need as much lead time as possible. To
find the
appropriate office, try searching for your institution's name at
https://www.newswise.com/resources/ncd/.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Third Report of Referee A -- LV16638/Bernauer
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The author has responded well to my question in my second round of the
review and I am happy with the response. I recommend the publication
of this paper in PRL.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Third Report of Referee B -- LV16638/Bernauer
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I am glad that Referee A compared the modified numbers in Table II in
the second version to the ones from the first version of the
manuscript after my first report led the authors to discover a bug in
their uncertainty calculations. While the magnitude of the changes is
concerning, I am satisfied by the authors' explanation for why they
are now confident that the quoted uncertainties in Table II are
reliable. In any case the changes are not order-of-magnitude level and
the changes do not appear to meaningfully affect the physics
conclusions of the paper or the likely impact of these results on form
factor extractions. Having said that, it is important that the
published uncertainties be correct, because these results will likely
be re-used many times in future global analyses.

I thank the authors for adding the curve of Ye et al. to Figure 2. It
seems to be in very good agreement with the data, which maybe suggests
that Ye et al. are on the right track with their method for applying
two-photon-exchange corrections to the data. It would have also been
nice to see the uncertainty band of the Ye et al. analysis
superimposed together with the central curve, but I realize this might
have required more substantial work, might be more difficult to
implement correctly without introducing mistakes or misinterpretations
for this observable, and also might have made the plot too "busy", so
I can certainly see the advantage of showing only the central curve.

So in summary, the plot is fine as-is. I do not believe that the paper
needs further revision, assuming that the uncertainties given in Table
II are now the correct ones.

-- =

Dr. Jan C. Bernauer
Assistant Professor
Department of Physics and Astronomy =

Stony Brook University
Stony Brook, NY 11794-3800 =


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/olympus/attachments/20210323/e801b306=
/attachment.html