ECCE Public Announcements

[Or Hen <hen AT mit.edu>]

Dear Bill, All,

Thank you so much for the hard work on this! This is an excellent paper and I’m excited to see it progress towards publication :)

Thanks,

Or

--
Or Hen,
Massachusetts institute of Technology,
Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.
www.hen-lab.com

On Feb 9, 2023, at 12:01 PM, Wenliang (Bill) Li via Ecce-eic-phys-l <ecce-eic-phys-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Dear all,

We would like to give you a quick update on the progress of the modification effort to address the reviewer's comments.

1. Editor extended the deadline for re-submission to Feb 28th. As you might have noticed that reviewer 1 suggested modifying a large number of figures, it was very time-consuming. The editor agreed to extend the deadline.

2. Comment from reviewer #1 is completely addressed. We urge the collaborators to read their corresponding sections to ensure the figures are modified to their satisfaction. 

3. We are making progress in addressing the comments from Reviewer #2. These changes are mainly related to the modification of the text or adding the relevant material.

We should be able to meet the re-submission deadline. Once the paper modification is completed, we will invite you to go through the changes again one last time.

Many thanks

Axel, Julie, Rachel, and Bill

Reviewers' comments are attached:

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1: Dear authors, the proceeding presents an extensive review of the ECCE detector concept in the context of the EIC physics program. The ECCE sub detectors are described and simulation results for several physics signals study are also presented. The document is well written and shows original and relevant results. In my opinion, it deserves to be published. There are anyway some minor modifications which need to be implemented.

-    There are a lot of missing characters, both along the text and in some equation. Maybe this is just a problem in creating the pdf file for the submission, anyway, I suggest the authors to check.
-    There are a lot of figures, this is in general good, but some of them are too small or have axis titles and legends very small! More in details:
      o    Figure 6, 7, 9: increase size of the axis titles
      o    Figure 8: increase size of plots and of axis titles
      o    Figure 10: I would suggest inserting it vertically, this will do it larger.
      o    Figure 11:  the two plots are small in my opinion, maybe you can consider the possibility to split the legend of the color coding, putting it above the two plots. In this way you can gain space for the two plots.
      o    Figure 17, 18: increase size of the axis titles
      o    Figure 20, 21: axis fonts and axis title fonts too small
      o    Figure 22: (left) Y axis title not clear. (right) in the legend "Q2 = ?"
      o    Figure 25: axis titles missing. Plots too small, I would suggest putting one under the other.
      o    Figure 26: axis titles and legend inside the plots are not readable, too small. Is it really needed to show all the four plots?!
      o    Figure 27: axis title missing? Increase the legend inside the plots
      o    Figure 31: X axis title?
      o    Figure 32: plots too small, not readable!
      o    Figure 34: axis title too small, increase it. Maybe, better to have larger plots one under the other.
      o    Figure 35: axis titles too small.
      o    Figure 37: plots too small. Maybe better to have one under the other or one plots using different line styles for electron and positron. Increase the size of axis titles.
      o    Figure 39: legend overlaps the histogram.
      o     Figure 38, 40: Increase the size of axis titles
      o    Figure 45: increase the size of the axis titles and of the legend font inside the plots.
      o    Figure 46, 47, 48, 49, 50: plots too small. It is really needed to have all of them, like this are not readable
      o    Figure 48 and 49: it seems they are not commented in the text?!
      o    Figure 52: increase the size of the figure and of the axis titles
      o    Figure 53, 54 and 55: X axis title too small. Y axis title missing, they are "entries"? I would suggest adding it.
      o    Figure 59, 61: increase the size of the axis titles
      o    Figure B.66, D.68:  increase the size of the axis titles

Please also consider these:

-    Page 11, second column, first raw: pt = 200 MeV --> put on the same line
-    Page 12, second column, 9th raw: cA = 25 mrad --> put on the same line
-    Page 15, second column, 11th raw: pmiss = pe +…. --> put on the same line
-    Page 40, second column, 2nd raw: "These results of these studies.." --> "The results of these studies.."?
-    Page 40, second column, 8th raw: IP-8 studies of Sec. ?.



Reviewer #2: This is a very interesting and comprehensive paper and should certainly be published. I have a few suggestions to improve the readability (especially given the fact that this is a long paper and not everybody will be reading it from beginning to end but some readers will rather concentrate on the sections they are most interested in):

It would be helpful to define somewhat more clearly the scope and set the stage for readers who are not familiar with the present state of the EIC project (is ECCE the only detector on EIC or one of several?; what are the other projects?; has this detector concept been developed in a stand-alone way or is it the result of a fusion of several concepts?, etc.). Especially chapter 5 with the somewhat unusual title "IP 8 insights"  would benefit from a general comment (is this an alternative site for the ECCE detector?; is this the site for a full-fledged second detector?; would this be an almost identical copy of the ECCE detector?). While some of these questions become clearer after reading it would be useful to get such an introduction beforehand. The title of the chapter might be extended to already reflect a bit the conclusions.

In many places it becomes clear that these are preliminary studies and further investigation is needed. It might be useful to have a short overview at the beginning of the paper indicating what will be addressed in this paper and what will be studied in later publications.

The layout of the asymmetric ECCE detector could be described a bit more clearly and explicitely for readers who are only used to symmetric detectors. A somewhat more verbose description of Fig. 1, and maybe another figure of the central detector, would be helpful.

It would help the reader to make the headings more prominent to make it easier to find the relevant sections (e.g., use bold face for numbered headings and subheadings, but not for non-numbered subsubheadings). The individual physics impact studies in chapter 4 should be separately listed in the table of contents to guide the readers to the sections of particular interest to them.

Obviously, this paper was written by a number of different people, with different command of English and different background. A thorough editing of the paper to make it more uniform would be useful (decide on either US or UK spelling, do not mix the spelling in the paper (e.g. "center" and "centre"); correct the grammer, e.g. in cases where singular/plural nouns and verbs do not match, where articles are missing, etc.; avoid physicist's slang such as "the separation between DVCS and pure Bethe-Heitler" (write "Bethe-Heitler scattering"); correct spelling in general (not "reconstructed to born-level" but "Born level"); pay attention to details ("lead-tungstate crystals" rather than "lead tungsten crystals").

In general, help the readers to find their way around in the paper (e.g. Appendix A seems to lack any text and contain only the heading until the reader finds the corresponding figure; a reference to the figure would help). A clear definition of every new concept that is introduced would be helpful. So, on page 4 you define "diffractive and tagging processes: no exchange of color-charge between the initial and final state nucleon" but this leaves the reader in the dark as to what would in turn be the difference between "diffractive" and "tagging" processes. Try to use generally accepted formula letters (e.g. not a plain "+" sign but a plus sign in a circle when listing the contributions to detector resolution).

In the annotated copy I attach I have highlighted and commented a few but by far not all typos, typesetting, spelling and grammatical mistakes as well as inconsistent, clumsy or hard-to-read formulations.

This being said I want to repeat that this is a very interesting and informative paper and deserves publishing with the suggested minor modifications.

_______________________________________________
Ecce-eic-phys-l mailing list
Ecce-eic-phys-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ecce-eic-phys-l

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature