From william@cepheid.physics.utoronto.ca Mon Apr 23 10:28:17 2001
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 04:01:51 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Comments on "Searches for New Physics in Events with a Photon

Hi Ray,

Just a couple of quick comments on your replies to our comments. You
needn't take them very seriously. I am seriously bored on this
morning's owl shift... Just trying to find something to do that
doesn't involve alot of concentration...


William

 >
 >Abstract:
 >
 >1) It would be a good idea to put some numerical results in the abstract.
 
     Abstracts should be short- this one is already long. there is no single
 number that seems sufficiently more important than some of the others
 to be singled out.

WT: But papers should have a "result", preferably a quantifiable one.
WT: We are trying to do quantifiable physics. I understand your generic
WT: search strategy tries to avoid setting a limit on only one model but
WT: isn't there someway you can summarise the generic exclusion ... by
WT: cross-section limit for example? Clearly I have not read the paper in
WT: a long time so this might be a bad suggestion. But I think the principle
WT: of trying to put a numerical result with errors (or 95%CL if it is a
WT: is a good one.

 
 >2) When you quote a second paper by the same authors you should include
 >the authors name again. cf. 1 and 11.
 
      A quick check of the style page on
 http://publish.aps.org/STYLE/ms.html#citations
 for two sources confirms that what we have done is correct.

WT: mea culpa. But were [1] and [11] "wrong" according to the PRD style?
 
 >5) Couldn't ref 15 just be a footnote, or better yet included in the text?
 
     Please grant us this style point. (see the CDF guidelines for godparenting)

WT: Fortunately these guidelines only apply to godparents ... just kidding