Response to Dr Knott's comments

Response to Dr. Oleson's comments

✍ Daniel S. Kapp; Todd A. Barnett; Richard S. Cox; Eric R. Lee; Allen Lohrbach; Pe 📂 Article 📅 1991 🏛 Elsevier Science 🌐 English ⚖ 141 KB

Response to Dr Frazier's comments

✍ Harold Zirin 📂 Article 📅 1972 🏛 Springer 🌐 English ⚖ 191 KB

Frazier (1972) criticized the conclusions of Veeder and Zirin (1970) and of Foukal (1971) on the relation of chromospheric morphology to magnetic fields. No sooner was this answered by Foukal and myself (Foukal and Zirin, 1972) when a second, more strident criticism by Frazier (directly preceding

Response to Dr. M. Castañs comments

✍ S.M. Jeter 📂 Article 📅 1983 🏛 Elsevier Science 🌐 English ⚖ 97 KB

Response to comments by Dr. Bernhard Lau

✍ U.R. Lenel 📂 Article 📅 1984 🏛 Elsevier Science 🌐 English ⚖ 95 KB

Response to Rankin's comments

✍ Gaalen L. Erickson; Jazlin V. Ebenezer 📂 Article 📅 1997 🏛 John Wiley and Sons 🌐 English ⚖ 16 KB 👁 1 views

Rankin's comments on our article, "Chemistry Students' Conceptions of Solubility: A Phenomenography," are organized around three very different concerns which he has described in somewhat succinct and, we might add, provocative subheadings of: "Nothing New," Two Different Perspectives of Conceptions

Response to Shafer’s comments

✍ Kevin S. Van Horn 📂 Article 📅 2004 🏛 Elsevier Science 🌐 English ⚖ 147 KB

I'd like to thank Professor Shafer for the historical background and additional perspective he has provided. I have only a few comments in response. I will proceed from less to more substantive issues. 1. Use of the word ''plausibility''