After several indirect exchanges with the opponents making similar accusations, I appreciate being offered a chance of a direct rebuttal to the charges from Bejan himself. I would like to precede our discussion following the sections in Bejan's paper ‘ “Entransy,’ and its lack of content in physics” [1], and the italicized texts below are directly quoted from his article.
In laying down the background, Bejan described in this article, “Why be curious about entransy? Because of two events. First, one of our graduate students showed us a 2010 paper {3}, which is strikingly the same as a paper published by our group in 2008 {4}. We wrote a letter to the editors of Ref. {3} in which we charged that Ref. {3} is ‘so very similar that it cannot be a coincidence.’ Our letter was reviewed by three anonymous reviewers who agreed unanimously with our charge....
