ECCE Public Announcements

["Wenliang (Bill) Li" <billlee AT jlab.org>]

Dear all,

We are glad to inform that the comments from both reviewers are 
addressed in full.

We would like to invite you to carefully read the latest version of the 
paper before re-submission (in one week).

Please see the latest version of the paper in the attachment and the 
Reviewers' comments (including our response) below.

Many thanks for all your help and efforts,

Axel, Julie, Rachel, and Bill

-------------------------------------------------

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 [Done]
       o        Figure 8: increase size of plots and of axis titles [Done]
       o        Figure 10: I would suggest inserting it vertically, 
this will do it larger.                                          [Done]
       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. [Done]
       o        Figure 17, 18: increase size of the axis titles [Done]
       o        Figure 20, 21: axis fonts and axis title fonts too 
small [Done]
       o        Figure 22: (left) Y axis title not clear. (right) in 
the legend "Q2 = ?" [Done]
       o        Figure 25: axis titles missing. Plots too small, I 
would suggest putting one under the other               . [Done]
       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?! [Done]
       o        Figure 27: axis title missing? Increase the legend 
inside the plots [Done]
       o        Figure 31: X axis title? [Done]
       o        Figure 32: plots too small, not readable! [Done]
       o        Figure 34: axis title too small, increase it. Maybe, 
better to have larger plots one under the other.                [Done]
       o        Figure 35: axis titles too small. [Done]
       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. [Done]
       o        Figure 39: legend overlaps the histogram. [Done]
       o        Figure 38, 40: Increase the size of axis titles [Done]
                Bill's Comment: delete Figure 38a
       o        Figure 45: increase the size of the axis titles and of 
the legend font inside the plots.                             [Done]
       o        Figure 48 and 49: it seems they are not commented in 
the text?!                                      [Done]
                Bill's Conment: delelte Figure 48 and 49.
       o        Figure 52: increase the size of the figure and of the 
axis titles [Done]
       o        Figure 59, 61: increase the size of the axis titles [Done]
       o        Figure B.66, D.68:  increase the size of the axis 
titles [Done]
       o        Figure 46, 47, 48, 49, 50: plots too small. It is 
really needed to have all of them, like this are not readable [Done]
       o        Figure 53, 54 and 55: X axis title too small. Y axis 
title missing, they are "entries"? I would suggest adding it.   [Done]

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

/*--------------------------------------------------*/
/*--------------------------------------------------*/

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
* ECCE the only detector on EIC or one of several?; [Done]
* what are the other projects?; [Done]
* has this detector concept been developed in a stand-alone way or is it 
the result of a fusion of several concepts? [Done]
Bill's comment: these descriptions are included in the introduction section

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? [Done]
* is this the site for a full-fledged second detector? [Done]
* would this be an almost identical copy of the ECCE detector? [Done]
* While some of these questions become clearer after reading it would be 
useful to get such an introduction beforehand. [Done]
* The title of the chapter might be extended to already reflect a bit 
the conclusions. [Done]

In many places it becomes clear that these are preliminary studies and 
further investigation is needed.
* 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.  
[Done]

* 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. [Done]
Bill's comment: Explainatoin is added in Sec.2 instroduction seection. 
The caption of Fig. 1 is expanded to point out the asymmetrical nature 
of the EIC e+p scattering lab frame.

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). [Done]
* 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.                                     [Done]
Bill's comment: The Latex template provided by NIMA doesn't allow to 
list subsections. However, the Table of different subsections are listed 
in Table 4 to help reader to navigate

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, [Done]
* do not mix the spelling in the paper (e.g. "center" and "centre"); [Done]
* correct the grammer, e.g. in cases where singular/plural nouns and 
verbs do not match, where articles are missing, etc.; [Done]
* avoid physicist's slang such as "the separation between DVCS and pure 
Bethe-Heitler" (write "Bethe-Heitler scattering"); [Done]
* correct spelling in general (not "reconstructed to born-level" but 
"Born level"); [Done]
* pay attention to details ("lead-tungstate crystals" rather than "lead 
tungsten crystals"). [Done]

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).                                                     
[Done]
* 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. [Done]
* 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). [Done]
* 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.
Bill's comment: we didn't receive the annotated copy from the editor. 
Will follow-up with the editor.

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