Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sphenix-l - Re: [Sphenix-l] WWND Conference Proceedings

sphenix-l AT lists.bnl.gov

Subject: sPHENIX is a new detector at RHIC.

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Thomas Marshall <tmarshall1218 AT gmail.com>
  • To: sphenix-l AT lists.bnl.gov
  • Cc: "Rosati, Marzia \[PHYSA\]" <mrosati AT iastate.edu>
  • Subject: Re: [Sphenix-l] WWND Conference Proceedings
  • Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2022 11:38:40 -0400

Thanks for the comments Jin!

I went through and made all of the changes you suggested, as well as the changes Cameron sent me over Mattermost. I’ll share the final draft here in case anyone wants to make final comments, but if everything looks ok then I’ll probably try and submit it sometime this afternoon as long as that’s ok with Jin and Cameron.
Thanks for all of the help!

Thomas Marshall|Graduate Student|He/Him
UCLA DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS & ASTRONOMY
Experimental Heavy Ion Physics
Physics and Astronomy Building
430 Portola Plaza
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1547
(732) 685-3788

Attachment: WWND_2022_Proceedings-5.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document


On Jun 27, 2022, at 10:48 PM, Huang, Jin <jhuang AT bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Thomas
 
The manuscript is already in a very good shape. Just few more minor comments:
 
  • Line 6: b-hadron -> $b$-flavored hadron
  • Line 7: acronyms need definition within abstract: MVTX, INTT, TPC, EM
  • Line 15: p+Au -> $p$+Au, $p$+$p$
  • Line 65: as used in -> as successfully used in (so less negative to STAR which laid foundation to MVTX)
  • Line 130: adding citation to “from Strickland and Bazow
  • Line 140: been performed by CMS at the LHC in the heavy ion collisions(people have certainly seen Upsilon-3S before in smaller collision system)
  • Line 167: “Due to the better constraints 168 on bottom quarks, as opposed to lighter charm quarks, in the 169 theoretical modeling of this
    -> “Comparing with charm quarks, the heavier bottom quark is expected to provide cleaner theoretical interpretation [9][10]”
  • Line 192: “analysis using geometric” -> “analysis using decay topology
  • Line 200: “the KFParticle package is the answer.” -> “KFParticle package is incorporated to address this challenge.”
  • Line 200: “This tool is a current industry standard” -> “This package is …”
 
Looking forward to your updated and submission ready manuscript.
 
Cheers
 
Jin
 
______________________________
 
Jin HUANG
 
Physicist, Ph.D.
Brookhaven National Laboratory
Physics Department, Bldg 510 C
Upton, NY 11973-5000
 
Office: 631-344-5898
Cell:   757-604-9946
______________________________
 
From: Cameron Thomas Dean <cameron.dean AT cern.ch> 
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2022 10:57 AM
To: Thomas Marshall <tmarshall1218 AT gmail.com>; Huang, Jin <jhuang AT bnl.gov>
Cc: sickles AT illinois.edu; Rosati, Marzia [PHYSA] <mrosati AT iastate.edu>; Anthony Frawley <afrawley AT fsu.edu>
Subject: Re: [Sphenix-l] WWND Conference Proceedings
 
Hi Thomas, 

Thanks for sending around the new version of the note. I re-read and have only a few minor changes for the text:

line 4 – Should we have commas between “detector being” and “(RHIC) will” ?
line 14 – You can probably drop relativistic here as it’s repeated in the next line (though it is from the name of RHIC)
Fig. 1 caption – You should change EPD to sEPD (same for line 37)
Line 50 – 51 – You have “and” twice (it’s over the line break)
Line 147 – “Because of” -> “Due to”

There are also a few instances of writing Lambda_c instead of Lambda_c^+ and having Upsilon written out in full instead of using the Greek letter. I’m not sure if a reviewer will ask for this to be changed but it’s up to you.

I have no physics comments on this version so I’m happy to give my green light for submission. Feel free to add the above changes where you see apporopriate.

Cheers,
Cameron
 
From: Thomas Marshall <tmarshall1218 AT gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 11:34 AM
To: Jin Huang <jhuang AT bnl.gov>
Cc: "sickles AT illinois.edu" <sickles AT illinois.edu>, "mrosati AT iastate.edu" <mrosati AT iastate.edu>, Anthony Frawley <afrawley AT fsu.edu>, Cameron Thomas Dean <cameron.dean AT cern.ch>
Subject: Re: [Sphenix-l] WWND Conference Proceedings
 
I’ll make sure to post responses to any comments I get and will definitely share the final version of the proceedings before submitting.
Thanks a bunch!
Thomas

 

On Jun 22, 2022, at 10:48 AM, Huang, Jin <jhuang AT bnl.gov> wrote:
 
Sure. 
 
Cameron and I already had our first iterations of comments and update with Thomas prior to collaboration submission. We certainly will go through it again.
 
Cheers
 
Jin
 
 
______________________________
 
Jin HUANG
 
Physicist, Ph.D.
Brookhaven National Laboratory
Physics Department, Bldg 510 C
Upton, NY 11973-5000
 
Office: 631-344-5898
Cell:   757-604-9946
______________________________
 
From: Sickles, Anne M <sickles AT illinois.edu> 
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2022 10:11 AM
To: Rosati, Marzia [PHYSA] <mrosati AT iastate.edu>; Anthony Frawley <afrawley AT fsu.edu>; Cameron Thomas Dean <cameron.dean AT cern.ch>; Huang, Jin <jhuang AT bnl.gov>
Cc: tmarshall1218 AT gmail.com
Subject: Fwd: [Sphenix-l] WWND Conference Proceedings
 
Hi Marzia, Tony, Cameron, & Jin, 
 
On behalf of the Publication Board, can I ask you to provide a review on this for Thomas prior to submission?  I do not think we need four sets of comments; one or two sets are likely sufficient.
 
Thomas, could you provide responses to the comments and post a final version of the proceedings prior to submission?
 
Best,
Anne
 
---------------------------------------------------------
Anne Sickles
Associate Professor
University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign
---------------------------------------------------------
 
 

 



Begin forwarded message:
 
From: "Perepelitsa, Dennis via sPHENIX-l" <sphenix-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Subject: Re: [Sphenix-l] WWND Conference Proceedings
Date: June 21, 2022 at 6:11:58 PM CDT
To: Thomas Marshall <tmarshall1218 AT gmail.com>
Reply-To: "Perepelitsa, Dennis" <dvp AT bnl.gov>
 
Hi Thomas, 
 
Many thanks for sending around the draft proceedings. Is it possible to produce a version with line-numbering? This would make them easier to review.
 
For the STAR 2S+3S results, STAR does not produce dedicated documents associated with their Preliminary results. However, that measurement was presented in this QM’18 talk: https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/files/Upsilon_draft_QM2018v13_0.pdf which may have a matching proceedings. That might be your best option.
 
Dennis



On Jun 21, 2022, at 3:27 PM, Thomas Marshall via sPHENIX-l <sphenix-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
 
Hi everyone! 
 
I wrote up some proceedings for the conference I attended in March and just wanted to share them for comments before I submit them. I was going to try submitting by Monday the 27th at the latest, so if you can get your comments to me before then I’ll make sure to add them in!
Also I’ll be adding in a citation for the STAR preliminary Upsilon 2S and 3S results from the beam use proposal figure I use, I just need to find the paper that shows them first.
 
Thanks a bunch!
 
 
Thomas Marshall|Graduate Student|He/Him
 
UCLA DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS & ASTRONOMY
 
Experimental Heavy Ion Physics
Physics and Astronomy Building 
430 Portola Plaza
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1547
 
(732) 685-3788
<WWND_2022_Proceedings_Marshall,T.pdf>
 
Dennis V. Perepelitsa
Assistant Professor, Physics Department
University of Colorado Boulder

 

 




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page