Hi Urs,
the corrections are fine with me, just a couple of remarks:
- I see that you sneak in the inversion of the B0/Bch ratio. Do we want to
point it out to the reviewer?
- in the response to the referee I would explicitely say what you change
in the text and spare him the effort of chasing the changes in the text.
- the prl_submit.tex in the repository still contains comments (%) which
should be removed when uploading
- it would be nice to update the BAD repository as well
thanks
Ric
______________________________________________________
Riccardo Faccini
Universita' "La Sapienza" & I.N.F.N. Roma
tel +39/06/49914798 Fax.: +39/06/4957697
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~rfaccini
Univ. La Sapienza. 2,Ple Aldo Moro, I-00185 Roma Dipartimento di Fisica
"I don't understand what you say, but I believe I disagree" W.D.
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Urs Langenegger wrote:
>
> Hoi,
>
> all is fine with the b2ulnu PRL, one small remaining phrase issue (see
> below). I have prepared a new version in
>
> http://babar-hn.slac.stanford.edu:5090/hn/aux/ursl/note582/prl-submit.ps
>
> and propose to reply to the ref with something along the lines
>
> We do indeed lower (our) experimental systematic error by measuring
> the fraction Ru. This is mostly due to lepton ID (especially muon
> ID) and to better mES fits. We feel a motivation for the measurement
> in terms of Ru is in place.
>
> The larger acceptance leads to a smaller extrapolation error
> (theoretical error).
>
> We have reworded the phrase so that the distinction between
> experimental and theoretical systematic errors is clear.
>
> Comments, please?
>
> Cheers,
> --U.
>
>
>
> ------- start of forwarded message -------
> From: Physical Review Letters <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Your_manuscript LG9660 Aubert
> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 20:40:20 +0000 (UT)
>
> Re: LG9660
> Measurement of the inclusive charmless semileptonic branching
> ratio of B mesons and determination of $|V sub {ub}|$
> by B. Aubert, R. Barate, D. Boutigny, J.-M. Gaillard, et al.
>
> Dr. U. Langenegger
> SLAC, M/S 95
> P.O. Box 20450
> Stanford, CA 94309
>
> Dear Dr. Langenegger,
>
> The above manuscript has been reviewed by our referees. Acceptance
> of your paper for publication is likely, but we first ask you to
> consider carefully the enclosed comments.
>
> Please accompany your resubmittal by a summary of the changes made,
> and a brief response to any recommendations and criticisms.
>
>
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Robert Garisto
> Senior Assistant Editor
> Physical Review Letters
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> Fax: 631-591-4141
> http://prl.aps.org/
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Second Report of Referee A -- LG9660/Aubert
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I have studied the responses of the authors to my
>
> original comments, and the
> revised version of the paper. I am happy that all my comments have been
> addressed , and now recommend that this paper be published in PRL. I still
> have two small suggestions relating to some of my original comments (same
> numbering):
>
> 3) The phrase in the introduction line 11 still to my mind sounds like a
> claim that measurement of the ratio R_u in itself leads to smaller
> systematic errors than have previously been acheived, which is
> incorrect. I would propose rephrasing it along the lines:
> `The analysis extracts |V_ub| by measuring the fraction of charmless
> semileptonic decays R_u=... We acheive a higher signal purity and
> acceptance than previous analyses [4], leading to smaller systematic
> uncertainties.'
>
> 6) Significance of the result for the double ratio on page 13. I suggest
> adding a phrase such as 'consistent with theoretical expectation', to give
> some interpretation, however brief, of this result.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> --
> --------------------------
> Second Report of Referee B -- LG9660/Aubert
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The authors have addressed my concerns and have produced a much more
> readable descripton of their important analysis. It should be published
> as soon as practible.
>
>
> ------- end of forwarded message -------
>
>
