Related papers: Comments on "Recent Developments in Plasmon-Assist…

We reply to comment on recent paper by Pieplow and Henkel (New J. Phys. 15 (2013) 023027) and our results made by Volokitin and Persson (arXiv: 1405.2525)

This is a reply to the preprint "On Neutrino-Mixing-Generated Lepton Asymmetry and the Primordial Helium-4 Abundance" by M. V. Chizhov and D. P. Kirilova (hep-ph/9908525), which criticised our recent publication (X. Shi, G. M. Fuller and K.…

We comment on the recent paper "Magnetic Percolation and the Phase Diagram of the disordered RKKY model." D.J. Priour and S. Das Sarma, Phys Rev. Lett.{\bf 97}, 127201 (2006); cond-mat/0606532)

Statements included in the comment published by Schumann et al. (arXiv:1904.03023v1) are contradicted by documents that were communicated to one of the co-authors of the comment (Dr. Koester). These documents are reviewed but cannot be…

Comments on "A new additive decomposition of velocity gradient" [Phys. Fluids 31, 061702 (2019), arXiv:1908.01638] is presented

This note responds to Schwartz and Hutchison's Comment (arXiv:2403.06001) on our article (DOI:10.1002/adma.202309393). We think differences have arisen not in the experimental results themselves but in their interpretation: our more…

I present here critical comment to the recent e-print "Proximity effect in ultrafin Pb/Ag multilayers within the Cooper limit" by by O.Bourgeois, A.Frydman and R.C.Dynes, demonstrating that the interpretaion of the data presented in…

We point out flaws in the work of Vranjes et al. (EPL 99 25001, 20012), and present correct criteria for quantum plasmas.

This is our formal Reply to revised version (v2) of arXiv: nucl-th/0510004v2.

Here we reply to the comment by A. F. Volkov, F. S. Bergeret, and K. B. Efetov.

We believe that a recent, unconventional theoretical work published in Physical Review Letters 103, 113601 (2009) by Sekatsky, Brunner, Branciard, Gisin, Simon, albeit appealing at fist sight, is highly questionable. Furthermore, the…

A response to commenter Ke Lan's comment on our paper published in Nature Communications (2023)14:5782 by J. Yan et al

This manuscript was originally submitted to Nature for consideration as a "Brief Communication" in response to a "Corrigendum" that appeared in 2006 (1) to an earlier paper in Nature. That corrigendum was the subject of a Nature editorial…

The original text has been changed substantially since the first version of this paper. Finally, we have decided to split that submission in two parts. Each of them includes a large number of updates and corrections. They were placed on…

The differences in potential models used in our work and in the original paper of the authors of the Comment are discussed. The neglecting of simple rules of reaction calculations is shown as a possible origin of the defect in the…

We respond to a Comment [arXiv:1407.6854 (2014)] on our recent Nature paper [Nature, 510, 385 (2014)]. We categorically disprove the arguments provided in arXiv:1407.6854 (2014) and thereby further substantiate the evidence we presented in…

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.

The inconsistency of cond-mat/0007299 and Phys. Rev. B 63 094510 (2001) with ARPES and resistivity data is pointed-out.

It is shown that the evidence asserted in the Comment [arXiv:1205.6418] on the chemical composition data published by Carpinteri et al. [Strain 47 (Suppl. 2), 282 (2011)]-that the data "cannot be the result of independent measurements as…

In response to the comment by Zhu and Berakdar (arXiv:1207.3457) that the physical system considered by them in their previous work [Ding et al., PRB 84, 115433 (2011)] is conceptually different from ours in the appendix of our latest paper…