Related papers: Comments on a Recent Review Paper on Near-Sun Come…
The paper of Unal [J. Math. Phys. 59, 062104 (2018)], though worthy of attention, contains a conclusion that is in error and may mislead the efforts to extend his results. The aim of the present note is twofold: we provide a correction to…
We summarize the comet science provided by surveys. This includes surveys where the detections of comets are an advantageous benefit but were not part of the survey\'s original intent, as well as some pointed surveys where comet science was…
This Comment identifies errors in the formalism/implementation reported in Ref. 1 and discusses some aspects of that work that were not fully specified in the original publication. This Comment also provides reference numerical results for…
The aim of this note is to point out some inaccuracies in our paper \cite{HD} and to fix them. Some new notions are introduced and properties of them are investigated.
In this communication we refute a criticism concerning results of our work [3] that was presented in references [1] and [2].
The paper has been withdrawn because a new, substantially revised version of the theory of neutron star radiation is completed by the author.
This brief paper summarizes a ``key general review'' with the same title given at the IAU meeting in Rio de Janeiro. The intent of the review talk was to give a broad and well-illustrated overview of recent work on the icy middle and outer…
This paper presents results of a survey of authors of journal articles published over several decades in astronomy. The study focuses on determining the characteristics and accessibility of data behind papers, referring to the spectrum of…
The solar atmosphere is full of complicated transients manifesting the reconfiguration of solar magnetic field and plasma. Solar jets represent collimated, beam-like plasma ejections; they are ubiquitous in the solar atmosphere and…
In this note, we establish the validity of a conjecture recently proposed in Mathematics Magazine and connect it to the existing interesting results
A comment on a misleading statement contained in [Phys. Rev. A 97, 062115 (2018)]. v2: a typo corrected
I analyze the implications of the recently published "Author Correction" (Nat Commun 14, 5322 (2023)) to a paper by Eremets and coauthors reporting magnetization measurements on hydrides under high pressure (Nat Commun 13, 3194 (2022)) to…
There are some inaccuracies and errors in my article "Dual and almost-dual homogeneous spaces". Here I will describe in detail how to correct incorrect statements from this article and which statements there will have to be reformulated in…
In 1988, in cooperation with a team of experimental physicists, a Condensed Matter theorist, X, published in Physical Review Letters a crucial experimental result dealing with a revolutionary new theory. The conclusions of the paper were…
This chapter aims at providing the tools and knowledge to understand and model the plasma environment surrounding comets in the innermost part near the nucleus. In particular, our goal is to give an updated post-Rosetta view of this ionised…
This paper has been withdrawn because the models on which it was based have undergone significant changes and improvements. A new paper with the same title, based on the improved models, is accepted for publication in MNRAS and is available…
This Comment is in response to an Erratum to the paper entitled "The shape and composition of interstellar silicate grains" (Min et al., A&A, 462, 667-676 (2007). The Erratum corrects erroneously cited data but upholds the paper's original…
The author reports his recollections of what transpired. These may or may not prove consistent with the contributions to be published in the proceedings. Corrections are welcome.
We critically discuss recent articles by S. Hoffmann and N. Vogt on historical novae and supernovae (SNe) as well as their list of `24 most promising events' `with rather high probability to be a nova' (Hoffmann et al. 2020). Their alleged…
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].