相关论文: Reply to "Comment on Nature 586, 373 (2020) by E. …

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

An arxiv paper, ref. [1] by Cao et al., claimed that the tunable attraction reported in our ref. [2] could not be detected. Ref. [1] was submitted to Nature in Apr. 2016 as a Comment on our ref. [2]. Our reply in May 2016 responded to ref.…

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…

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.

In their correspondence [arXiv:1610.07633] Drummond and Brand criticize our work [Nature Physics 12, 451-454 (2016) http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphys3631]. We show that their criticism is misleading and unfounded.

The paper CERN-PH-EP-2009-015 (arXiv:0903.4762) by A. Bagulya et al. violates standards of quality of work and scientific ethics on several counts. The paper contains assertions that contradict established detector physics. The paper falls…

The authors of the Comment ascribe us claims never made while moderating their own previous unsubstantiated statements.

This paper was withdrawn by arXiv admins because of inappropriate and unverifiable claims of appropriation.

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

This is an appendix to our paper "An update of the Hirsch Conjecture" (arXiv:0907.1186), containing proofs of some of the results and comments that were omitted in it.

We reply to the criticism of Opthof and Leydesdorff [arXiv:1002.2769] on the way in which our institute applies journal and field normalizations to citation counts. We point out why we believe most of the criticism is unjustified, but we…

In their Comment, Borasoy et al. [arXiv:hep-ph/0512279], criticize our results [PRL 95 (2005) 172502] that accommodate both scattering data and the new accurate measurement by DEAR of the shift and width of kaonic hydrogen. In our…

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…

A comment to the authors' SRF Conference pre-print [1] was submitted by A. Gurevich to the arXiv [2]. In this response, we show that the arguments used in the comment are not valid. [1] arXiv:1309.3239 [2] arXiv:1309.5626

We respond to the criticism raised in the paper arXiv:1704.07831.

We reply to the comment by Ying Zhang and S. Das Sarma on our PRL 94, 226405 (2005).

In November 2016 we submitted to arXiv our paper "Automated Inference on Criminality Using Face Images". It generated a great deal of discussions in the Internet and some media outlets. Our work is only intended for pure academic…

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 criticisms of a recent paper of Buchert et al. [arXiv:1505.07800]

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