Related papers: Reply to Comment by J.A.Garcia, arXiv:0705.0143 (t…

This is a reply to the comment by Gilbert and Sanders [arXiv:1111.6271 (2011)]. We point out that their comment is a follow-up of a previous discussion which we briefly summarize before we refute their new criticism.

In the present work we reply to the Comment by Catalan and Scott (cond-mat/0607500) on two of our papers. This Comment has been rejected from publication in Physical Review Letters and, hence, our Reply is based on the cond-mat version.

It is shown that the results of ref [1] are consistent.

We investigate the similarities of pairs of articles which are co-cited at the different co-citation levels of the journal, article, section, paragraph, sentence and bracket. Our results indicate that textual similarity, intellectual…

We discuss two possible interpretations of Definition 1.1 from \cite{GW}.

We show that, contrarily to the claims in [K. Bradler, (2011), arXiv:1108.5553] (and arXiv:1201.1045), the reference [Phys. Rev. A 83, 062323 (2011)] is devoid of flaws or mistakes. We show that the criticism comes from a misunderstanding…

We discuss how the comment by A. Loeb [arXiv:2408.06714] has no bearing on the results of Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 041401 (2024) [arXiv:2405.02389].

The main results of papers gr-qc/0307026 and gr-qc/0312068 are formulated. These results are opposite to conclusions of paper astro-ph/0305039 and comments gr-qc/0309036.

Generally, it is common that cited papers are earlier than citing papers. But we found three different cases, with more undiscovered. In this letter, we attempted to explain the reasons. However, negative time lag between citing and cited…

We respond to comments in arXiv:2502.15817v2 about our article, arXiv:2412.12282. We stand by our conclusions and defend them against the criticisms.

The Comment by Xiong et al. (arXiv:1610.06275) criticizing my Letter [Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 133903 (2016)] was rejected by Physical Review Letters. In this Reply, I show that all their claims are wrong.

Comment on Article by Ferreira and Gamerman [arXiv:1509.03410].

Comment on Article by Ferreira and Gamerman [arXiv:1509.03410].

This paper has been removed by arXiv administrators because it plagiarizes hep-th/0311050, gr-qc/0306101, gr-qc/9601044, gr-qc/0511106, gr-qc/0303034, and gr-qc/0212018.

no abstract for comments

We reply to the comment arXiv:quant-ph/0702060 on our letter arXiv:quant-ph/0603120 [Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 100402 (2006)]

This paper is in response to a recent comment by Bellissard [arXiv:1704.02644] on the paper [Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 130201 (2017)]. It is explained that the issues raised in the comment have already been discussed in the paper and do not…

Here we respond briefly to a comment on our work in arXiv:cond-mat/0405501.

In their correspondence [arXiv:1610.07633] Drummond and Brand criticize our work [Nature Physics 12, 451-454 (2016) http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphys3631]. We show that their criticism is misleading and unfounded.

Two objections have been raised to the arguments presented in O. Cohen, Phys. Rev. A 60, 80 (1999). It is pointed out that neither objection has anything whatsoever to do with the main subject matter of that paper, and shown that both…