Hi Jonnie, I don't think I'll have time to go through it by Monday night unfortunately. As I agree that comments were generally benign, you should go ahead with your plans as far as I'm concerned (happy to read it anyway in the next days), thanks
Gianni On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 12:14 AM, Jonathan Pober <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > Attached is an updated draft of our paper in light of the reviewer's > comments (most changes have been bolded in the PDF). I also attach a cover > letter to the reviewer. Since the general consensus seems to have been > that the reviewer's comments were fairly benign, I'm going to plan on > resubmitting by the end of the day on Monday. Please let me know if you'd > like more time to read what I've sent around. Thanks to everyone who > helped with suggestions for ways to address the reviewer comments. > > Cheers, > > Jonnie > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Jonathan Pober <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> I've returned from a long weekend to find what seems to be a pretty >> reasonable review of our paper. Some good suggestions for additional >> calculations/analysis. I'll likely be in direct contact with some of you >> for some more detailed thoughts on certain arguments. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Jonnie >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: <[email protected]> >> Date: Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 3:02 PM >> Subject: Your ApJ Submission MS#ApJ98277 >> To: [email protected] >> Cc: [email protected] >> >> >> March 21, 2015 >> >> Dr. Jonathan C. Pober >> University of Washington >> Department of Physics >> Seattle, WA >> >> >> Title: PAPER-64 Constraints On Reionization II: The Temperature Of The >> z=8.4 Intergalactic Medium >> >> Dear Dr. Pober, >> >> I have received the referee's report on your above submission to The >> Astrophysical Journal, and appended it below. As you will see, the referee >> thinks that your article is interesting and that it will merit publication >> once you have addressed the issues raised in the report. >> >> When you resubmit the manuscript, please include a detailed cover letter >> containing the (mandatory) listing of the changes you've made to the text >> and your responses to the report. >> >> Click the link below to upload your revised manuscript; >> >> http://apj.msubmit.net/cgi-bin/main.plex?el=A3Ew5CgF5A7CIJC5J5A9ftdPhqJQztwDKZjnXhUUJl8wZ >> 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: >> jonpober. 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 paper presents a first interpretation of the recent PAPER-64 >> measurement of the HI 21 cm line power spectrum from z=8.4. This is an >> important result and, albeit still far from being a conclusive one, is very >> much in need of an in-depth exploration of its physical implications. The >> authors aim at doing so by using a simplified approach based on the choice >> of two main parameters, the mass-averaged spin temperature and neutral >> fraction of the intergalactic medium, and the use of the semi-numerical >> code 21CMFAST. >> >> I like the spirit of the study, in that it tries to preserve a physically >> transparent approach appropriate to a first-order investigation of the >> problem. At this stage, the approximations made are justified (I appreciate >> the several caveats on various neglected effects that might affect the >> final conclusions). However, there are a few tests and improvements that >> the authors could add which could make the paper more solid. These are >> listed below. The paper is clearly written and at the same time concise, a >> combination that I appreciate considerably. All in all, I would recommend >> the paper for publications after consideration of the following points by >> the authors. >> >> 1. Clearly, the major approximation made in the study is that the >> morphology of the spin temperature field is the same independently on the >> total intensity of the heating. This is a rather crude assumption, and it >> is necessary to quantify its impact on the final result with some tests in >> which such approximation is not made. The authors should at least provide >> an order of magnitude estimate of the expected error. >> >> 2. An aspect that can be also improved is the treatment of the absorbed >> fraction as a function of the photon energy and ionization fraction for >> which the authors use a range of constant values. As robust and detailed >> calculations based on Monte-Carlo simulations of the particle energy >> cascade provide simple but accurate fits (see e.g. eqs. 4-7 of Valdes & >> Ferrara 2008MNRAS.387L...8V, a relevant result that the authors have >> missed) at least a test should be performed with this more realistic >> physical modeling. >> >> 3. In Sec. 3.3 it is stated that "ionization histories and their >> associated power spectra for a large number of \zeta_X values". How many >> values have been explored and in what range? Also, what is the accuracy of >> the interpolation? >> >> 4. The meaning of the term "morphology", widely used in the paper, might >> not be immediately transparent to non-experts in the field. It would be >> very useful to define it clearly, e.g. at the beginning of Sec. 3. >> >> 5. Fig. 2: The rounded shape of the power spectrum contours is physically >> rich and deserves a few lines of physical interpretation when discussing >> such Figure. >> >> 6. Sec. 5.1 in the f_abs section: "The resultant hot electron" > "The >> resultant fast electron" (temperature for a single particle does not make >> sense). >> >> 7. Intro and Conclusions: "it has been determined that the observed >> high-redshift galaxy population cannot produce enough ionizing photons to >> complete the reionization of the Universe before z = 6". This point was >> made considerably earlier than the Finkelstein+12 and Robertson+15 studies, >> and at least the papers by Kuhlen+2012MNRAS.423..862K, and >> Choudhury+2008MNRAS.385L..58C must be added in this context. >> >> >> >> >
