Related papers: Comment on "Disassembling the Clockwork Mechanism"

We reply to the comments on our previous paper Physical Review Letters, Vol. 129, 087001 (2022), raised by Th\'eo S\'epulcre, Serge Florens, and Izak Snyman in arXiv:2210.00742.

We reply to the comment cond-mat/0008098 by Yang, Sun, and Chang on our paper "Theory of Diluted Magnetic Semiconductor Ferromagnetism", Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 5628 (2000).

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…

We reply to David's comment (hep-lat/9504017) on our paper Phys.Rev.Lett. 74(1995)1920.

This is a comment on two recent arXiv postings.

We reply to the preceding Comment by E. van Beveren et al., arXiv:0811.2589 [hep-ph].

I comment on a recent preprint "Neutrino Velocity Anomalies: A Resolution without a Revolution" that appeared recently as arXiv:1110.0989 [hep-ph]

We note that the empirical predictions of the "Quantum Clock Proposal" [L. Maccone and K. Sacha, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 110402 (2020)] are paradoxical when viewed as a solution to the quantum arrival-time problem.

This is a comment on "Universal Fluctuations in Correlated Systems", by Bramwell et al, Phys. Rev. Lett., 84, 3744 (2000.

The paper comments on "Quantifying long-term scientific impact". It indicates that there is a mistake of [D. S. Wang , C. Song, A. L. Barabasi, Quantifying long-term scientific impact, Science 342, 127 (2013), arXiv:1306.3293].

In his fresh "Comment" (arXiv:0711.0137v1), A. Mostafazadeh reacts on my very recent letter (arXiv:0710.5653v1) where I tried to clarify certain misunderstandings which occurred in A. M., Phys. Lett. B \textbf{650}, 208 (2007)…

This paper has been withdrawn by the author, as it is now incorporated in 0901.4506 (v4)

This is a response to the article arXiv:1212.3130v1 by Xu-Jia Wang, where he attempted to address a mathematical question we raised. We point out that, and explain why, the article is far from answering our objections. Moreover, we have…

We consider some critical claims concerning our above paper, and reply to these claims.

The authors of preprint arXiv:1810.00565 and paper in Light: Science & Applications (2019), Y. Dubi and Y. Sivan, made several wrong and inconsistent comments on several of our papers. In addition, the paper in Faraday Discuss. 214, 215-233…

Reply to the Comment by L. Berthier and J.-P. Bouchaud, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 059701 (2003), also cond-mat/0209165, on our paper Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 097201 (2002), also cond-mat/0203444

Response to William A. Wilson on the limits and fallibility of science.

We strongly disagree with the criticism by G. Fleishman, which has been published on the astro-ph arXiv (astro-ph/0502245), of our paper on jitter radiation from GRB shocks (Medvedev 2000, ApJ, 540, 704). In this note, we present the…

We briefly comment on the paper by Albaladejo et al. [arXiv:1709.09101], rejecting its conclusions.

In this Reply we argue that the conclusions derived in Ref. arXiv:1301.1241 are questionable.