Dear authors of the search for SUSY with GMSB paper, the Spokespersons Publication Review Group (this time represented by Peter Renton, Barry Wicklund, and Tommaso Dorigo) has reviewed your second draft, finding little to object on. We offer a few comments and corrections to further improve the manuscript. ==> Thank you. General comments: ----------------- - Something that escaped us on the first draft: we really object to using the limit tau_chi = 0 in the text. Strictly speaking, a particle cannot have a zero lifetime! We suggest to change the mentions of tau=0 in "tau<1 ns". ==> Agree; however, it should be tau<<1. - We understand your stylistic preference for long sentences, but note that it causes a burden on the readers, especially to non-native English speakers. Having seen from your answers to draft 1 that you object to changing the style, we can only advise you to break in smaller pieces some of the longest sentences. ==> Thank you. We agree shorter sentences are, in general, easier to read. We don't object to changing the style. That being said there are many ideas that go together so its often hard to make complicated ideas go into simple sentences in a short way. If there are specific requests we will address them one by one. - please check that figures look OK in black and white. ==> We don't see any problem. Also this color scheme was already used in two papers in Ref.[17] Line-by-line comments: ---------------------- L3: The publication guidelines suggest to avoid "We" in the abstract, which must be considered a stand-alone text. One way out is "The authors present". ==>Lots of published papers (PRL, PRD), for example, Ref.[11], [13], [17], etc., used "We". Prefer to leave as is. L29: Could you maybe find a better wording than "for much of the parameter space" ? ==>Following Ref.[17], we changed to "for various points in parameter space". L51 please add comma before "which". ==>Done. L59: please remove "and"; L60: please add comma before "and". ==>Rephrased. L75: this "EM Timing" is defined here and used only once in the footnotes. We suggest to just remove the definition here. ==>We prefer to leave it for the same reasons that we have left over other definitions like COT. Often times giving things a name helps. L87 "is a jet " -> labels a jet. ==>Disagree. Here gamma_fake is any source of fake photons. It includes both electron and jet fakes. We replaced "a jet" by "any object" P2 L1: please add hyphen to "second-highest Et photon". ==>Done. L7: "Et's" -> "Et". ==>Done. L16: ref [16] doesn't seem to be cited ==>Page 1, line 74 sites Ref. [16]. L20: please add hyphen to "beam-halo identification requirements". ==>Ref.[17] uses beam halo and we follow this. L64-65: this sentence would read better if you removed the comma before "normalized" and substituted the "and" before "taking" with a comma. ==>Done. L70: suggest "fakes: namely, W and Z..." ==>Done. L80: suggest to add a comma after "ns". ==>Done. L82: suggest to add a hyphen to "background-enhanced sample". ==>Done. L95: "all SUSY processes" is misleading. Suggest "all SUSY processes considered" ==>Done. P3 L1: please add comma before "and". ==>Done. L2: It would be useful to indicate the typical values for signal and background events for this variable. ==> The values are mass, lifetime and cut dependent. They also vary enormously. We give an example set of values in the next paragraph at the bottom of the page on the LHS and the top of the RHS. L16: formerly this "gamma_fake" was defined as a jet faking a photon, here it denotes an electron. Can we remove the inconsistency somehow ? ==>gamma_fake was re-defined above. Since we don't know which is which in data we don't distinguish with different notations. L23: what does it mean that each point gives a different optimization ? Maybe the verb here is "is subjected to". ==>Yes. Rephrased. L31: the paper uses loosely the word "cut", which is particle physics jargon. Suggest to change "set of cuts" into "selection" here. ==>Done as "set of reuirements". We also changed "cut" to "requirement" in P3:L21 and P3:L42. L35: 0.9 of which is -> are. Done. L39: suggest "and tau_chi0<1ns". ==>Done as "and tau_chi0<<1ns". L42: "The data are consistent... and are well..." ==>Done. L46: Figure 2 -> Fig.2 . The word "Figure" can stay non abbreviated only when it starts a sentence. ==>Done. L52: same as above. ==>Done. P4 L3: suggest to change "at tau=0" with "for tau<1 ns". ==>Done as "at tau<<1". L5: Please change "at a lifetime of 0 ns" with "for lifetimes below 1 ns". ==>Done as "...well below 1 ns". L30: Please use the latest acknowledgements. ==>Done. Ref 1: five authors -> S.Ambrosanio et al. ==>Done. Ref 9: remove dot after "et" ==>Done. Ref 10: add comma after "Xia". ==>Done. Ref 15: Prodcution -> Production. Later: what does it mean "Photons with second highest [add hyphen anyway] Et or narrow jets ... tracks, [remove this comma anyway] can me mismeasured ? This sentence is awkward ands hould be rewritten. ==>Fixed with "Production" and the sentence is rephrased. Ref 16: please boldface 566. ==>Done. Ref 19: please add hyphen to "GEANT-based". Later, suggest to remove EMTiming and just spell out "parametrized simulation of EM calorimeter timing". ==>Done with "-". We prefer EMTiming simulation as it is. Ref 20: add comma before "and", twice. ==>Done. ---- That is all, congratulations for your important new result Tommaso for the SPRG. ==>Thanks again.