Related papers: Response to arXiv:1005.2615
Here is response Neutrino-4 collaboration to the note arXiv:2006.13147 on article "Preparation of the Neutrino-4 experiment on search for sterile neutrino and the obtained results of measurements" arXiv:2005.05301. Red text is commentary…
This is a reply to Professor Yehia Comments in arXiv:1305.0026
This is a comment on two recent arXiv postings.
We offer a brief response to the criticisms put forward by Cusin et al in arXiv:1811.03582 about our work arXiv:1810.13435 and arXiv:1806.01718, emphasising that none of these criticisms are relevant to our main results.
The recently submitted preprint on the first results from the XENON100 dark matter experiment (arxiv:1005.0380) was followed by a criticism by J.I. Collar and D.N. McKinsey (arxiv:1005.0838), focused on our extrapolation of the…
We comment on Z. D. Zhang's Response [arXiv:0812.2330] to our recent Comment [arXiv:0811.3876] addressing the conjectured solution of the three-dimensional Ising model reported in [arXiv:0705.1045].
This is our formal Reply to revised version (v2) of arXiv: nucl-th/0510004v2.
We discuss various relations between part of the results in arXiv:2103.05803v4 and recent author's results.
In a brief note posted recently, the authors of arXiv:1503.07813 raised some concerns on our arxiv:1502.03821, recently published in Nature Physics. We thank them for the interest in our work and respond here to their criticisms.
We have reviewed the comment in [3], posted on arXiv.org concerning our recent work in [1]. We reply to the comment in this paper.
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.
This is an addendum to the Reply Comment [Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 139602 (2009), arXiv:0811.0518] to Comment [Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 139601 (2009), arXiv:0810.4791] on Letter [Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 116101 (2008), arXiv:0804.1898].
A reply to arXiv:0809.2310, "Comment on Universal Charge-Radius Relation for Subatomic and Astrophysical Compact Objects" [arXiv:0804.2140,PRL100(2008)151102]
We briefly remind references and arguments, already discussed in the past, which confute erroneous claims in arXiv:1210.5501.
We respond to the criticisms of a recent paper of Buchert et al. [arXiv:1505.07800]
Comment on "Citation Statistics" [arXiv:0910.3529]
Comment on "Citation Statistics" [arXiv:0910.3529]
A few final comments on arXiv:1210.7548 are given to confute incorrect arguments claimed there.
We reply to S. Coen and T. Sylvestre's comment on our paper [Phys. Rev. A 80, 045803 (2009)] and make some additional remarks on our experimental results.
In this brief note we comment on the recent results presented in arXiv:1812.08736v1