type B ====== Introduction: line 34-36: “though hints for a different behaviour have been found at intermediate pT at sqrt(Snn)=2.76 TeV” - > what kind of different behaviour? line 48: Why can you go down to Y_cm -2.4, but only up to Y_cm 1.93? Event selection: line 78-80: ‘tower’ has not been explained in the rest of the paper, perhaps this can be rephrased to be understandable to non-CMS readers. Yield extraction line 93-94: Why state here, before actually discussing the results, that the results agree with previously published results? Should you not show that they are indeed compatible? Or are these results made public elsewhere? line 102-104: “To accommodate the dependence of the dimuon invariant mass resolution inside the analysis bins” -> it seems like some information is missing here. What does the dimuon invariant mass resolution depend on? line 109: ‘Based on simulation studies, the value of the parameter n is fixed to n=2.1’ Do we really have so much trust in our MC that we do not need to allow the fit to vary n at all? line 122: What do you mean by ‘(assumed for all dimuons)’? The fact that you assume the J/psi mass for all dimuon pairs? This could perhaps be elevated to a full sentence, ie. “The mass of all dimuon pairs is assumed to be the J/psi mass.” Acceptance and efficiency corrections line 132: I know we used Pythia 6 in Run 1 and Pythia 8 and Run 2 and your pPb sample was collected in Run 1 and the pp sample in Run 2. Why was the pPb sample generation not also performed with Pythia 8, if the analysis was done well after this generator became commonly used? Systematic uncertainties line 163-164 “The degree N of the Chebyshev polynomial is changed to N+1 if N<3 and to N-1 if N=3” - > why is this particular variation chosen? What is the reason for the change in behaviour for N=3? line 169: Where these ratios also taken in the signal region or was this in a control region? line 170: “Continuous weighting factors …linear function in pT” -> Were other functions tried and did this give the best fit, or is there a compelling reason for why the relationship should be linear? line 188-189: The way it is written this line implies the luminosity uncertainty is 4.2% in all of your measurements, when it really only is that in your nuclear modification factor. You could consider removing the statement that a global systematic uncertainty of 4.2% is applied and just mention the pp and pPb numbers. Results: line 225: Why are you stating that comover interactions have been implemented as factorization breaking effects in hadronisation? Where are they implemented/what does it mean for the analysis described here? type A ======= Abstract: Would it be possible to avoid using comments in brackets here? You could simply say ‘The suppression is more pronounced in the direction of the Pb beam’, as it will become apparent later in the paper that this is the region of backward rapidity. Introduction: line 7: …gold-gold (AuAu) collisions… -> this is the only place in the paper (apart from the references) where gold-gold collisions are mentioned, so this probably does not need to be defined as (AuAu) here. line 10-12: “…confirming the relevance … heavy ion collisions” -> this reads a bit odd, as if the fact that these states have been studied is evidence that it is important to study these states. Could consider rephrasing this. line 12-14: Does the last part of the sentence, 'which have been seen for J/psi and Y mesons in PbPb collisions’, apply to ‘cold nuclear matter effects’ or all of the effects mentioned in the sentence? If all perhaps add ‘which have all been seen…’. line 21: Try to avoid comments in brackets. Is it necessary to specify that hot medium effects = effects due to the QGP? Can also say ‘hot medium effects, such as effects due to the QGP, … or ‘effects due to the QGP, also referred to as hot medium effects,…' line 23: SPS and HERA are accelerators, FNAL is a laboratory - would consistency not be better? line 24: Shouldn’t ‘by PHENIX and STAR’ be 'by the PHENIX [23] and STAR[24] Collaborations' ? lines 28-29: the comments on what the forward and backward rapidity directions are (proton-going direction and Pb going direction) read a bit odd. Would it be better to define the forward and backward directions elsewhere rather than working with ‘proton going’ and ‘Pb going’ in brackets? Also, proton-going and Pb going would probably be better replaced with proton beam and Pb beam. Event selection: line 78-80: drop comma between 'total energy’ and ‘in each of the two HF calorimeters’ Yield extraction line 98-101: This line is very hard to read. Perhaps the sentence would be clearer if it was split up, something like “The CB function combines a Gaussian core and a power law tail with an exponent n which accounts for energy loss due to final-state photon radiation. A parameter alpha defines the transition between the Gaussian and power law functions. line 107-108: Consider changing statements like m_0 (the J/psi mass) to the J/psi mass, m_0, … to remove the bracketed comments. A possible alternative would be something such as “the following parameters are left free in the fit: . Here, m_0 is the J/psi mass, N_.. is …, etc." line 113: you define log-likelihood ratio (LLR) test, but this is the only place in the letter where this acronym appears. Therefore (LLR) should be dropped. Systematic uncertainties line 169: “The ratio of corrected yields in data and MC..” -> “The ratio of yield in data and the corrected yield in MC…” because you only correct the MC, not the data. line 174: “is taken a systematic uncertainty” -> “is taken as a systematic uncertainty" Summary line 233: ‘and’ missing between (pp) and ’34.6 \invnb’