Hi Zaki - congrats on the excellent referee’s report! We need to be sure to define the relationship between HERA and SKA-low, and realize that the international community especially takes the SKA-low timeframe seriously such that there is a perceived potential overlap; whereas we see it more as a scientific and technical precursor.
Dave > On Mar 9, 2015, at 12:42 PM, Zaki Ali <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> Subject: Referee's report on ApJ/ApJ98224 >> Date: March 9, 2015 at 5:40:41 AM PDT >> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> Cc: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> Reply-To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>, >> [email protected] <mailto:[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 >> >> <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. <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 become inactive, and are considered to have been withdrawn, six months after 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. >> >> >> >
