Related papers: Rezayi and Read Reply

This is a reply to a Comment on 'A test-tube model for rainfall', {\it Europhys. Lett.}, {\bf 106}, 40001, (2014).

Comment on "Efficiency of Isothermal Molecular Machines at Maximum Power" (PRL 108, 210602 (2012), arXiv:1201.6396)

Some critical comments and remarks on the article "Comparison of two experiments on radiative neutron decay" by R.U.Khafizov et al., published in Physics of Atomic Nuclei.

The commented manuscript was submitted for publication without informing at least four of the other authors, viz. N. Severijns, O. Zimmer, H.-F. Wirth and D. Rich. This violates our rights as collaborators. The analysis presented and the…

This is an addendum to the Reply Comment [Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 139602 (2009), arXiv:0811.0518] to Comment [Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 139601 (2009), arXiv:0810.4791] on Letter [Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 116101 (2008), arXiv:0804.1898].

Rejoinder to "Multiple Testing for Exploratory Research" by J. J. Goeman, A. Solari [arXiv:1208.2841].

Comment on K.J Thomas et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 135-138 (1996).

We respond to a Comment on our recent paper (Phys.Rev.C77:024304,2008) by Paar (arXiv:0803.0274).

Reply to comment appeared on hep-lat/9912014.

We clarify a number of points raised in [Matias, arXiv:cond-mat/0507471v2 (2005)].

An error in the paper [J. Math. Phys. 43, 6343 (2002); math-ph/0207009] is corrected. Further explanation is given.

This paper has been withdrawn by the authors.

We argue whether physics of universal approach of Severyukhin et al. [arXiv:1703.05710] is approved.

A comment on cond-mat/0210707, cond-mat/0208230, cond-mat/0207153, and cond-mat/0202140.

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

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.

This reply addresses concerns expressed in a comment (arXiv:2508.16689v1) on arXiv:submit/6841332 [physics.gen-ph] 29 Sep 2025 the paper given in the title (arXiv:2501.02022v2), hereafter referred to as the paper.

In this comment, I point out to several mathematical mistakes in the above-referenced letter.

A Comment on the Letter by S. Zelakiewicz et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1942 (2000).

This is a comment on [G. Knight and R. Klages, Phys. Rev. E 84, 041135 (2011); also available at arXiv:1107.5293v2 [math-ph]].