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

We point out that the claim of strong universality in the paper J.Phys. A 44, 015002, arXiv:1011.3321 is incorrect, as it contradicts known rigorous results.

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 reply to the comment arXiv:quant-ph/0702060 on our letter arXiv:quant-ph/0603120 [Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 100402 (2006)]

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

This is the revised version of a Comment on a paper by C. Escudero (Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 116101, 2008; arXiv:0804.1898).

This is the Reply to the revised Comment [Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 139601; arXiv:0810.4791] by Joachim Krug on our paper: C. Escudero, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 116101 (2008); arXiv:0804.1898.

In a comment cond-mat/9811080 to our paper (PRL, vol 81, 1698 (1998)) H. Bokil, A. Bray, B. Drossel and M. Moore claimed that we have reached wrong conclusions. We show here why their claims are not correct, especially when compared to the…

We deconstruct and address a comment to Carroll et al. [Phys Rev Lett 126, 063902 (2021)] (PRL) that has been posted on arXiv appearing as two versions [arXiv:2106.15242v1] and [arXiv:2106.15242v2]. This comment claimed that a term in the…

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].

We correct some tables and figures in [A.P. Bustamante and R.C. Calleja, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 395 (2019), pp. 15-23, arXiv:1712.05476]. We also report on the new computations that verify the accuracy of the data and extend the…

This paper has been withdrawn by the authors after discussing its content with Dr. J. Madsen.

In this comment we point out some wrong statements in the paper by Inc and Cavlak, Phys. Scr. 78 (2008) 045008

Certain comments on the paper of Yu.V. Orlov, B. F. Irgaziev and L. I. Nikitina published in Phys.At.Nuclei, {\bf 73} (2010) 757 are made.

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.

We correct several errors in Phys. Rev. D 66, 094011 (2002). [arXiv:hep-ph/0205210].

This article has been withdrawn by arXiv administrators because it plagiarises arXiv:1006.4556 (published in Phys. Lett. B 693, 129 (2010)).

Misinterpretation in the preceding Comment of my recent analysis of the past of a photon is corrected. There is nothing in this analysis which is "contrary to the usual quantum expectations" but, nevertheless, it does provide "further…

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.

The conclusions presented in this Letter arXiv:cond-mat/0412591 rely on not converged calculations and should be considered with caution.

We studied carefully the comment by S. G. Karshenboim, V. G. Ivanov and J. Chluba to our paper "Two-photon approximation in the theory of the electron recombination in hydrogen" and found this comment erroneous.