We recently received a pretty good referee report on a recent submitted paper, but it has kind of left me stumped. The referee asks ‘What did authors set out to achieve in this project?’ Well the honest answer is I don’t know. I don’t think we had real specific aims for the paper–which also might be why this paper took over two years to write (well, that and the fact that SALT needed commissioning).
However, we did have some clear aims with the initial project, but then it kind of blossomed into something bigger. We just wanted to ask what was the distribution of Luminous Compact Blue Galaxies (a type of galaxy undergoing a star burst) looked like in galaxy clusters. In particularly, we wanted to see if they were falling into the cluster. Then as it turned out, we were also able to look at what the red, blue, and green galaxies were doing as well. And the spatial and velocity distributions for them look different! I think we found this more interesting than just the LCBGs and really changed the approach from the initial draft of the paper.
However, our initial aim for the project doesn’t really match up to all of the interesting results that we generated. Which, might explain the mis-match between the introduction and the rest of the paper although I did try to make the introduction more applicable to the paper as a whole in the original draft. Now, how does an aim get generated post paper? What were the objectives of the paper? Well, that’s what I’m struggling with now. For the discussion, the referee suggests a couple of very relevant papers that we missed which should help out.