Proceedings

Comments
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Nishitani Risa,
please revise your contribution PoS(CPOD2021)030 (Measurements of net-proton fluctuation for $p$+$p$ collisions at $√s$ = 200 GeV from the STAR experiment) according to the following comments:

The proceedings article is devoted to the experimental measurement of higher-order fluctuations of net-protons measured in p+p collisions at center-of-mass energy 200 GeV. The data has been collected by the STAR experiment at RHIC. The p+p results provide an important baseline for understanding Au+Au collisions for which the non-monotonic energy dependence of net-proton fluctuations has been recently observed. In the analysis, the cumulant ratios of net-charge are used to cancel the trivial volume dependence of the cumulants. The experimental procedures are described in sufficient detail for the conference article. I would suggest some minor improvements to the manuscript.
☑︎Page 1:
☑︎temperature (T) → temperature ($T$)
☑︎(same below)
☑︎References should be in the proper order (Ref. 7 in the text appears before Ref. 6).
☑︎Ref. 5:
☑︎Stephanov, M.A. →Stephanov, M. A. (to be consistent with Ref. 7)
Page 3:
☑︎Time of flight (TOF) →Time Of Flight (TOF) (?)
☑︎Figure 1, 2, 3 (legends): p+p Collisioins →p+p Collisions
☑︎Figure 1: Are the systematic error bars (grey and green boxes) drawn? They are not visible in the figure. If they are smaller than symbol size, it is probably better to add such info in the text.
☑︎Figure 3: Are the points in Fig. 3 correlated? It is, for example, point for abs(y)<0.2 includes all the data from point abs(y)<0.1? If yes, such information should be added (for example, in the figure caption).
☑︎Figure 4: There is no distinction between long-dashed (value of 1; Skellam and HRG GCE?) and dashed lines (value of 0; just a line between negative and positive values?) neither in the figure legend nor in the figure caption. Skellam is mentioned only in the text.
☑︎"PYTHIA 8 and Skellam expectations are closer to the values of p+p than those of Au+Au central collisions.” → Is it the p+p „average of Pythia 8” result? Also, in this sentence: does it make any sense to compare PYTHIA p+p predictions with results of Au+Au?
Summary:
„The rapidity acceptance dependence of cumulant ratios shows some deviations from the Skellam expectations and PYTHIA 8 calculations.” → In Fig. 3 PYTHIA 8 predictions were not shown.
**************************************
It would be good to add the references to PYTHIA 8 (and eventually HRG) models used in plots.