Related papers: Response to Cusin et al's comment on arXiv:1810.13…

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

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

Brief response to a Reply [arXiv:1005.2615] on our Comments [arXiv:1005.0838] on XENON100 recent results [arXiv:1005.0380].

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…

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.

We reply to misleading claims made in a comment to our work by Birse and McGovern in arXiv:1708.09341.

We observe that there is no clash between the works \cite{gar} and \cite{g1}.

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

This is a comment on two recent arXiv postings.

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 the criticism raised in the paper arXiv:1704.07831.

This is a reply to Professor Yehia Comments in arXiv:1305.0026

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].

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…

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 the results of ref [1] are consistent.

A comment has been recently posted on the arXiv (arXiv:1902.07504) that discuss our recent work on encircling multiple exceptional points in Nat. Commun. 9, 4808 (2018). In that comment, the authors claim that our approach is prone to…

In [arXiv:2409.00161v1 (2024)] Cavendish et al. raise three criticisms against our time of arrival proposal [L. Maccone and K. Sacha, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 110402 (2020)]. Here we show that all three criticisms are without merit. One of…

This paper contains results which arose from the research which led to arXiv:1801.10436, but which did not fit in arXiv:1801.10436. So arXiv:1801.10436 contains the highlight results, but there are more results which are interesting enough…

A few final comments on arXiv:1210.7548 are given to confute incorrect arguments claimed there.