From huchra@fang.harvard.edu Sun Nov 14 05:43:58 1999 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by abyss.uoregon.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id FAA05036 for ; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 05:43:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from fang.harvard.edu (fang [131.142.24.63]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id IAA29777 for ; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 08:44:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from huchra@localhost) by fang.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id IAA09924; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 08:43:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 08:43:59 -0500 (EST) From: John Huchra Message-Id: <199911141343.IAA09924@fang.harvard.edu> To: js@abyss.uoregon.edu Subject: ref report + reply Cc: huchra@fang.harvard.edu Content-Length: 407 Status: RO Dear Jim, I'll look ovetr the paper myself. Usually when the referee makes a clear mistake in understanding a major point of the paper, its becasue that point might not have been made sufficiently in the paper itself and that may be the case here. Most of the comments in the referee's report were details which I thought you could easily deal with. I'm sorry the report was disturbing. John From js Wed Mar 1 11:28:37 2000 Received: (from js@localhost) by abyss.uoregon.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id LAA17221; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 11:28:36 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 11:28:36 -0800 (PST) From: Jim Schombert Message-Id: <200003011928.LAA17221@abyss.uoregon.edu> To: huchra@fang.harvard.edu Subject: ApJ MS #50048 In-Reply-To: Mail from 'Jim Schombert ' dated: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 13:46:59 -0800 (PST) Cc: apj@noao.edu Content-Length: 8497 Status: RO John - I would really like to know the status of MS #50048 - here is my response of Nov 11 - I have heard nothing from you since then - this paper is now in its 8th month of editoral limbo Jim From huchra@fang.harvard.edu Wed Mar 1 12:33:18 2000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by abyss.uoregon.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA18483 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 12:33:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from fang.harvard.edu (fang [131.142.24.63]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id PAA00425 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 15:33:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from huchra@localhost) by fang.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA10393 for js@abyss.uoregon.edu; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 15:33:47 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 15:33:47 -0500 (EST) From: John Huchra Message-Id: <200003012033.PAA10393@fang.harvard.edu> To: js@abyss.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: ApJ MS #50048 Content-Length: 374 Status: RO Hi Jim, It is completely my fault. I've read over the MS and your reply to the referee and hit a brick wall as to how to respond. As a result, I've procrastinated beyond the bounds of good faith. I'll get back to you with a written report in the next two days. I thought I coudl get through this quicker than the original referee, but I've failed. I'm sorry. John From js Wed Mar 1 12:43:31 2000 Received: (from js@localhost) by abyss.uoregon.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id MAA18677; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 12:43:30 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 12:43:30 -0800 (PST) From: Jim Schombert Message-Id: <200003012043.MAA18677@abyss.uoregon.edu> To: huchra@cfa.harvard.edu Subject: Re: ApJ MS #50048 In-Reply-To: Mail from 'John Huchra ' dated: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 15:33:47 -0500 (EST) Content-Length: 82 Status: RO J - ok, i figured it was something like that - growling always works with me J From huchra@fang.harvard.edu Wed Mar 1 12:51:19 2000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by abyss.uoregon.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA18836 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 12:51:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from fang.harvard.edu (fang [131.142.24.63]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id PAA01137 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 15:51:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from huchra@localhost) by fang.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA10594 for js@abyss.uoregon.edu; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 15:51:51 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 15:51:51 -0500 (EST) From: John Huchra Message-Id: <200003012051.PAA10594@fang.harvard.edu> To: js@abyss.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: ApJ MS #50048 Content-Length: 139 Status: RO yeah. me too. I've been trying to figure out how to be both nice to you and nice to the referee and haven'e succeeded yet. But I will. J From huchra@fang.harvard.edu Wed Mar 8 21:24:24 2000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by abyss.uoregon.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA17504 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 21:23:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from fang.harvard.edu (fang [131.142.24.63]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id AAA07631; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 00:05:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from huchra@localhost) by fang.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id AAA22528; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 00:05:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 00:05:56 -0500 (EST) From: John Huchra Message-Id: <200003090505.AAA22528@fang.harvard.edu> To: ApJ-MS50048@mss.uchicago.edu, apj@as.arizona.edu, js@abyss.uoregon.edu Content-Length: 12103 Status: RO March 8, 2000 Prof. James M. Schombert Department of Physics University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403 Dear Jim, I've had a close look at your revised manuscript with Rakos, Odell and Steindling, "Cluster Populations in A115 and A2283." I'm sorry this took so long to get back to you; this was mostly my fault in trying to find the balance between your reply and the referee's report. What I've gotten to is somewhere in between. There *are* grammatical errors, not major ones, but ones that should be corrected before publication. I've appended a partial list below, but it would be worth a good slow read to see if thre are any I've missed. The referee was worried about your ability to separate foreground, background and the cluster. So am I. I read the three earlier main refereed papers in the series (ApJ 439, 47; 466, 122; 490, 194) and could not find a clear test of the color selection of cluster members. Although its extra work, you could do this fairly easily for the redshift samples for A115 and A2283 (I've appended my zcat searches below; there are probably a few more z's in NED). What's needed is something like predicted redshift vs observed redshift for those objects that have them. There won't be a large number of objects (you could add A2317 and A2218 to the sample for this), but the test is critical to credibility. You might also plot residuals versus color, since your ability to assess blue fraction depends on getting the blue membership correct. The referee was worried about the dynamical state of the clusters, i.e. the old results of Beers et al that A115 showed local contamination along the LOS (multiple cluster components) that could cause such quantities as the local galaxy density to be overestimated. Your color selection criteria will not remove this. You should address the dyamical studies for these clusters as best you can, but don't ignore them. You need to try to put uncertanties on your population fractions. For example in Table 3, the Sy/AGN fractions are listed as Blue=3=13%, Red=0=0% and Total=2=3%. (which may also be an inconsistency, since I don't understand how the blue+red < total?) Are these really statistically different at the 3+ sigma level? Are the Starburst fractins in Table 1 statistically different? etc. Finally, the coordinates you give in Table 1 are listed as being 1950. They're not, those are the J2000 centers. These changes and additions will require a little additional work, but should yeild a better paper. Please upload your revised manuscript to the ApJ site and send me (huchra@cfa.harvard.edu) a note describing the changes or replies you make in response to the referee's comments. Continue to refer to ApJ MS #50048. Thank you. Sincerely, John Huchra Scientific Editor ======================================================================= Grammar etc.: Pg 6. "The minimal field size" --> The minimum field size" Pg 6. For each clustr, what angular paerture does 32 kpc imply? Pg 6. "spectrophotometry standards" --> "spectrophotometric standards" Pg 6+7 "0.02 mags" --> "0.02 mag" and ff. Pg 7. Last sentence of 2nd para under sec 2.2 is a little garbled, perhaps " The exact clasification procedure for out Stromgren filters (RMS96) and a new template method for our photometry are expanded upon below." ?