STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

[Prithwish Tribedy <ptribedy AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>]

Dear All,
  We have received the referee report of the isobar paper. The report is 
positive, only minor modifications have been suggested by the referee. 
We will work with the GPC to address the comments.
Best,
Prithwish for the PAs of the isobar paper


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Fwd: Your_manuscript CH10826 Abdallah
Date: 2021-10-29 12:46
From: Prithwish Tribedy <ptribedy AT icloud.com>
To: "ptribedy AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov Tribedy" <ptribedy AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>

Prithwish Tribedy
Physics Department, Brookhaven National Laboratory
Upton, NY 11973, USA
Phone: +1 631-344-8904, 631-344-3853
Fax: +1 631-344-4206
E-mail: ptribedy AT icloud.com

> Begin forwarded message:
> From: "prc AT aps.org" <prc AT aps.org>
>
> Subject: Your_manuscript CH10826 Abdallah
>
> Date: October 29, 2021 at 12:09:00 PM EDT
>
> To: "Tribedy, Prithwish" <ptribedy AT bnl.gov>
>
> Resent-From: ptribedy AT bnl.gov
>
> Reply-To: "prc AT aps.org" <prc AT aps.org>
>
> Re: CH10826
> Search for the chiral magnetic effect with isobar collisions at
> sqrt
> s NN=200 GeV by the STAR Collaboration at the BNL Relativistic
> Heavy
> Ion Collider
> by M. S. Abdallah, B. E. Aboona, J. Adam, et al.
>
> Dear Dr. Tribedy,
>
> The above manuscript has been reviewed by one of our referees.
> Comments
> from the report appear below.
>
> These comments suggest that specific revisions of your manuscript are
> in order. When you resubmit your manuscript, please include a summary
> of the changes made and a succinct response to all recommendations or
> criticisms contained in the report.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Christopher Wesselborg, Sc.D. (he/him/his)
> Managing Editor
> Physical Review C
> Email: prc AT aps.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://journals.aps.org/prc/__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!U9I0md_aptlmbFNrjMp5xuXf5VFHEsjepy8F6iHDAkjNpMLLZ6LaP-XSGymO2YZB$
> Follow us on Twitter @PhysRevC
>
> ==================================
> NEWS FROM THE PHYSICAL REVIEW JOURNALS
>
> Sign up for PRX Energy email alerts
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://go.aps.org/3wvDYbB__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!U9I0md_aptlmbFNrjMp5xuXf5VFHEsjepy8F6iHDAkjNpMLLZ6LaP-XSGzlvRfnp$
> Promoting Inclusive and Respectful Communications
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://go.aps.org/2TUnDQz__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!U9I0md_aptlmbFNrjMp5xuXf5VFHEsjepy8F6iHDAkjNpMLLZ6LaP-XSG7X2drF3$
> Physical Review Journal Metrics updated with 2020 JCR stats
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://go.aps.org/3e2aLyu__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!U9I0md_aptlmbFNrjMp5xuXf5VFHEsjepy8F6iHDAkjNpMLLZ6LaP-XSG3neqnjS$
> ==================================
>
> P.S. We regret the delay in the review process.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Report of the Referee -- CH10826/Abdallah
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The paper by the STAR collaboration reports the details of a search
> for the chiral magnetic effect (CME) with isobar collisions (Ru+Ru and
>
> Zr+Zr). A blind analysis has been performed using different methods by
>
> independent groups with predefined criteria. The results show that no
> significant CME signal has been observed.
>
> The blind analysis is well designed, and the analyses by different
> groups are carefully presented. The manuscript is clear and well
> structured. I have no doubt about the validity of the results. The
> subject matter is important and worthy of publication in PRC.
>
> I have several minor comments and suggestions related to the
> manuscript, as listed in the following.
>
> 1. L210, this is the first time "three-particle correlations" appear
> in the manuscript; please consider defining it, or refer to a later
> section.
>
> 2. L213, "centrality" is not defined before, please define, or refer
> to a later section.
>
> 3. L285, "-35 < Vz < 25 cm". Is there any reason the vertex position
> range is not symmetric? Any systematics related to the asymmetry?
>
> 4. L299, "EP" is not defined. Please consider moving the definition in
>
> L318 to here and removing the definition in the caption of Fig. 5
> caption.
>
> 5. L448, should it be sqrt{ |delta_1^2 - deltea_2^2| }?
>
> 6. L451, why sqrt{...}/sqrt{12}? Do the authors assume flat
> distribution?
>
> 7. L454-457, again, does the asymmetry introduce any systematics?
>
> 8. Figure 2. What is the pT cut off for the change hadrons? It should
> be clearer if the pT range is mentioned in the figure, or stated in
> the caption. Same for Figs. 3, 4, 10, 15, 24, and 25.
>
> 9. L575, "three-point correlator". Is it the same as "three-particle
> correlator"? The terminology should be consistent throughout the
> manuscript.
>
> 10. Equation (41). Should the summation be "i = 1" to "n"? There is an
>
> index "i" for w_i.
>
> 11. L855, please define "PPs". Participant plane, reaction plane, and
> event plane should be defined earlier, and they should be used
> consistently.
>
> 12. L976. What is "three-particle cumulant" method? Is it the same as
> the "three-particle correlation" method?
>
> 13. Figure 24. Some text overlaps with the caption. Please check
> whether this is a typesetting problem.
>
> 14. Figures 26, 27. The light gray text and legends are hard to read
> in a printout. For clarity, I would suggest a different color.
>
> 15. In the summary and discussions, the authors discussed the
> predefined CME signals and measurements. It is clear that there is no
> evidence for a significant chiral magnetic effect. The results of the
> measurements indicate quite opposite instead. Could one conclude that
> there are larger charge separation (CME-like) effects in Zr+Zr than
> that in Ru+Ru, despite the expectation of a larger magnetic field in
> Ru+Ru collisions? Does the baseline movement, such as the
> 1/Ntrk^offline, explain the large charge separation in Zr+Zr?