Changes between Initial Version and Version 1 of Private/RefereeComments/Abstract

Timestamp:

Aug 26, 2013, 8:34:09 AM (11 years ago)

Author:

cp3-support

Comment:

--

Private/RefereeComments/Abstract

@@ +1 @@
+= Abstract =
+
+Lines 1 and 2: ”the DELPHES fast-simulation framework is presented”
+makes the reader think that the content of the article is purely related to the
+software technicalities, while the paper is instead mostly about the physics
+content of the fast simulation - if one excepts Section 5. [See related comment
+about Section 5 below.]
+
+Suggestion : Replace ”fast-simulation framework” by ”fast simulation”,
+and remove the second sentence, which is out of place in an Abstract.
+
+Lines 5 to 9: The description of DELPHES in the abstract is too software
+oriented. The journal to which the preprint is submitted is called ”Journal
+of High-Energy Physics”, not ”Journal of High-Energy Software”. The ca-
+sual reader does not really care that the program produces ”collections”, he
+cares instead about the physics content of the simulation. The suggestion
+here would be to rephrase the end of the abstract to indicate the simulation
+was enhanced with new features, needed for the simulation of the LHC de-
+tectors in the coming period (e.g., additional pile-up interactions, which will
+become crucial in the coming decade, or particle-flow reconstruction, which
+has become a salient feature in the first years of the LHC for one of the two
+multi-purpose detectors), and that the program simulates ”physics objects”
+used for data analysis at hadron colliders such as ”jets”, ”taus”, ”missing
+energy”, ”electrons”, ”muons”, ”photons”, ”isolation”, ”pile-up mitigation”,
+etc. 
+
+It is indeed important that the concept of ”hadron collider” appears clearly
+in the abstract. Because the simulation is analysis-oriented, it would take a
+number of important modifications to make it useable for analysis of e+e-
+collisions, for example.