Related papers: Reply to Schneider et al. [arXiv:1407.4127v1]

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

We respond to the criticisms of a recent paper of Buchert et al. [arXiv:1505.07800]

The authors of the Comment ascribe us claims never made while moderating their own previous unsubstantiated statements.

In this communication we refute a criticism concerning results of our work [3] that was presented in references [1] and [2].

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.

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

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

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

After the rejection of their comment [arXiv:cond-mat/0609399v1] to our Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 97}, 100601 (2006), the Authors informed us that an extended version of their comment is going to be published in a different journal under the…

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.

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.

I respond to the Bernard et al. comment on my letter ``Chiral anomalies and rooted staggered fermions.''

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

We respond to the criticism raised in the paper arXiv:1704.07831.

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.

This is a brief response to a recent posting by Gross.

It is demonstrated that remarks and criticism in work [1] (arXiv:1005.2436 nucl-th) have resulted from inattentive reading of work [2] (Phys. Rev.C 81, 035501 (2010)) or just some misunderstanding and do not influence conclusions of work…

Reinhard Werner authored a comment on my paper "What Bell Did", disputing the conclusion and argumentation of the paper. This is my reply.

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…

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.