Related papers: Reply to Comment: S. Das Sarma et al., arXiv:0708.…

We reply to the comment by Ying Zhang and S. Das Sarma on our PRL 94, 226405 (2005).

We respond to invalid criticism in the recent Comment by Schneider et al. [arXiv:1407.4127v1]

We briefly remind references and arguments, already discussed in the past, which confute erroneous claims in arXiv:1210.5501.

In this report we've shown that the arguments, which the author of the Comment presents to prove his case, are either wrong or irrelevant.

Response to Comment by A. Bussmann-Holder (arXiv:0909.3603)

We show that arguments in the comment by Schwab et al. quant-ph/0503018 on our recent work are invalid.

We reply to the critiques of our paper arXiv:1210.5501 by the DAMA collaboration which appeared in arXiv:1210.6199 and arXiv:1211.6346. Our original claim that the observed background levels are likely to require a large modulation fraction…

Reply to the Comment by F. Corberi, E. Lipiello and M. Zannetti (cond-mat/0211609).

Samuely et al. (cond-mat/0503153) make the strong claim that our letter is 'contradicting several established experimental results'. As we will show below this is not justified and the claims from are based on a misinterpretation of our…

Comment on "Citation Statistics" [arXiv:0910.3529]

Comment on "Citation Statistics" [arXiv:0910.3529]

In the recently posted arXiv:2312.04495v3 [1], its authors used a computer code written by me supplied to them by the authors of Ref. [2], and claimed that the results that they obtained invalidate the results and conclusions presented in…

It is shown that criticism of my paper arXiv:0801.0656 Phys. Rev. Lett, vol. 101, 163202 (2008) by the authors of Comment arXiv:0810.3243v1 is wrong and that their main arguments are in contradiction with established concepts of statistical…

Withdrawn -- a revised version will appear in due course.

We provide our reply to the comment by Greiter and Schuricht (cond-mat/0511607).

Reply to the recent comment by I.Ispolatov and M.Karttunen, cond-mat/0303564

As a coauthor of the article mentioned in the title, I discuss the criticism in the comment of Aalseth et al. Part of the criticism is justified.

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.

This is a Reply to the Comment by Vaidman in arXiv:2306.16756 on the paper: R. B. Griffiths, Phys. Rev. A 107, 062219 (2023)

In this paper, we respond to a recent criticism of our work on CSH, (1,2) raised by Hirsch and van der Marel on the arXiv (3). We point out that their non-peer reviewed critique (3) stems from either a lack of scientific understanding or a…