Daniel K., Saskia, Xianglei, Shusu, Daniel C., Frank, Wei, 
(Fuqiang), Lokesh, Pibero, Gang, Vitaly

Title: Fluctuations of charge separation perpendicular to 
the reaction plane and local parity violation in Au+Au 
collisions at \sNN = 7.7 - 62.4 GeV

PWG: BulkCorr
Target Journal:  Phys. Rev. Lett.
PAs: Vitaly Okorokov and Gang Wang

Paper proposal web:
http://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/blog/rexwg/2013/feb/26/paper-proposal-lpvbes

The conveners panel agrees unanimously that this is an important
publication related to both the BES program the LPV search. 
The analysis is quite mature and the choice of PRL as the target 
journal is appropriate. The PAs were encouraged to move the paper
forward as quick as they can. 
Details of the discussions are summarized below:

1) There were some discussions on the systematic uncertainties. 
In fig. 2, PAs commented that no systematic uncertainty was shown
for the ALICE data due to different systematic error estimation. 
There was some suggestion to have a coherent systematic error 
estimation. If not possible, the figure caption and text need 
to clarify what are plotted.

REPLY: The systematic uncertainty is on the STAR data only,
since it was not carried out in the same way for ALICE.

2) On fig. 1, some cosmetic suggestions on using different 
symbol styles. Also particularly, several conveners suggest 
to still show six panels. Although you have more panels, 
the data points on each panel are much easier to catch and 
also easier to put in systematic uncertainties for all data sets.

REPLY: Now Fig 1 becomes figure 2, and we use 6 panels.

3) Fig. 5, some convener asked about the systematic errors on 
the data points and how firm we can argue for the scaling. 
PAs commented that this is a new plot and discussions are 
still ongoing on whether to include it or not? Also PAs 
mentioned possibly to include some model calculations.

REPLY: We removed Fig 5.

4) Continuing on the discussion of systematic uncertainties, 
PAs clarified a bit on the different systematic sources on 
two different correlator measurements.

5) There was some suggestion on the layout of proposed figures 
for a PRL publication. Some conveners commented that -Fig. 4,5, 
although are certainly interesting, seems a bit deviated from 
the main physics point. And there was also a suggestion to also 
look at the energy dependence of the dN term in the MSC 
correlator. This may be combined together with fig. 2 to 
strengthen the main physics message. PAs are encouraged to think 
about the best strategy on what figures to be included in the 
PRL paper.

REPLY: Now we removed these figures.

6) Finally, PAs were asked to give an estimation on the timeline 
for completing the analysis and writing the technical note and 
paper draft. PAs commented that this roughly will take about 
two months. The guidance for the paper technical note is 
outlined here:

http://www.star.bnl.gov/protected/common/GPCs/TechnicalNote.html

Best Regards

/xin