indeed never seen anything so positive ever before... Chapeau! Gianni
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 9:42 PM, Zaki Ali <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From: *[email protected] > *Subject: **Referee's report on ApJ/ApJ98224* > *Date: *March 9, 2015 at 5:40:41 AM PDT > *To: *[email protected] > *Cc: *[email protected] > *Reply-To: *[email protected], [email protected] > > March 9, 2015 > > Mr. Zaki S. Ali > University of California - Berkeley > Astronomy > 501 Campbell Hall # 3411 > University of California at Berkeley > Berkeley, CA 94720-3411 > > > Title: PAPER-64 Constraints on Reionization: the 21cm Power Spectrum at z > = 8.4 > > Dear Mr. Ali, > > We have received the referee's report on your above submission to The > Astrophysical Journal, and it is appended below. As you will see, the > referee thinks highly of your work and has only a few suggestions for > relatively minor changes. > > When you resubmit the manuscript, please include a cover letter in which > you outline in detail the specific changes you have made in response to > each of the referee's comments. > > Click the link below to upload your revised manuscript; > > http://apj.msubmit.net/cgi-bin/main.plex?el=A2Ew6nW2A7BkmF1J5A9ftdNf7TKcIf04yS4WQT4ORSWAZ > Alternatively, you may also log into your account at the EJ Press web > site, http://apj.msubmit.net. Please use your user's login name: zakali. > You can then ask for a new password via the Unknown/Forgotten Password link > if you have forgotten your password. > > Reviewers find it helpful if the changes in the text of the manuscript are > easily distinguishable from the rest of the text. Therefore we ask you to > print changes in bold face. The highlighting can be removed easily after > the review. > > The Astrophysical Journal has adopted a new policy that manuscript files > become inactive, and are considered to have been withdrawn, six months > after the most recent referee's report goes to the authors, provided a > revised version has not been received by that time. > > If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. > > Regards, > Ethan T. Vishniac > Editor-in-Chief > The Astrophysical Journal > University of Saskatchewan > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Referee Report > Reviewer's Comments: > This is an excellent paper, from a team that is clearly leading the way in > pushing toward a detection of redshifted HI from the Epoch of Reionisation. > The paper builds upon an already impressive literature from the three main > groups pursuing interferomeric detections of the EoR, specifically in this > case on the history of publications from the PAPER team regarding their > instrument, observational strategies, data analysis techniques, and initial > derived limits. Not all researchers working in EoR observations may agree > with the PAPER approach, but this paper is impressive in explaining clearly > the approaches taken, the methods used (and the motivations behind them), > and in providing a balanced description of the consequences of the > approach. This is, therefore, a very useful and positive paper for the > field, showing that useful constraints may not be far away. Current and > next generation experiments will take heart. > > I only have minor comments, below: > > 1) Recent results (from Planck that first stars formed ~100 million years > later than previously thought and the discovery of a redshift 6+ quasar > with >10 billion solar mass black hole by Wu et al. Nature - Feb 26) should > be mentioned in the introduction, I think. It is not so obvious that the > EoR starts with the birth of the first stars; > > 2) Introduction, second paragraph: "As it stands, the known..."; > > 3) In Figure 1, I suggest drawing lines between antenna pairs (10,41), > (10,58), and (41,47), to explicitly draw attention to the baselines > mentioned in the text. Makes it easier for the reader; > > 4) Throughout the paper you switch between (22.4 mJy)^2 and 503 mJy^2. > Small point, but please choose one form; > > 5) Section 2. Square Kilometre Array is the official (non-US English) > spelling; > > 6) Section 2. Would be useful to list how many baselines exist in each > redundant group pointed out in Fig 1; > > 7) Near end of Section 3.1: "...from redundancy with over 10-minute..." > does not make sense; > > 8) A couple of places in the text "flux" is used where you mean "flux > density"; > > 9) After equation 6, the number of significant figures for S_{150} and its > error are incompatible; > > 10) In Figure 4, the label "omnical" above the right hand panel should > presumably be capitalised, to match the text. I'm not sure "rough > calibration" is a very scientific label for the left hand panel; > > 11) Section 3.3, second paragraph: "...In the delay domain, a point..."; > > 12) Section 3.4, third paragraph: "...equivalent to an LST bin...", or > "..a LST bin...", depending on your preference; > > 13) Section 3.5, second paragraph: probably "zero fringe rate" is a better > description than "static fringe rates" for objects at the poles; > > 14) Section 3.5, second paragraph: Probably better to use "responds to the > sky" rather than "illuminates the sky". Stick with the receive case rather > than switch to the transmit case; > > 15) Section 4.1, first paragraph: "...given LST the spread in..."; > > 16) Section 4.1, second paragraph: "...two-day timescales caused by > the..."; > > 17) Before equation 25, "...where m_{\alpha} is a complex..." and > "...delay mode \alphs. We..."; > > 18) The upper limit triangles in Figure 18 are a bit hard to see. Could > you make them a bit bigger please? Also, you need to list the triangle > colour for the previous PAPER limit in the caption; > > 19) Section 6.2, second paragraph: Please give the full arXiv reference > for the "Planck Collaboration et al. (2015)" reference. It is unclear what > this refers to; > > 20) Section 6.2, several places, missing white space after citations of > Pober et al. 2015, in prep); > > 21) Discussion, second paragraph: last sentence is truncated and > incomplete; > > 22) Discussion, third paragraph: "...improves, it will be possible..."; > > 23) Discussion, third paragraph: "...signal if the polarized signal..."; > > 24) Conclusions, second paragraph: "...continues to be one of the..."; > > 25) Conclusions, second paragraph (and here and there throughout). Surely > "PAPER array" is redundant? So, should be "...antenna positions in PAPER > for highly..." and similar elsewhere? > > 26) At the end of the Conclusions, if the interesting criteria for future > experiments are that they have large collecting area and have garnered > significant funding, then I think you had better mention the SKA when you > discuss HERA. SKA-low has secured large amounts of pre-construction funding > and has survived SKA rebaselining, so is on at least as good a path as > HERA. While PAPER is the precursor for HERA, LOFAR and the MWA are > pathfinders and precursors for SKA-low. While I don't expect this > authorship to be selling SKA-low, I think it is appropriate to acknowledge > the SKA-low effort in the same vein as the HERA effort. > > > > >
