Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The reliance upon, and use of, unreliable hearsay literature by expert testifiers is a challenging topic that cuts across the spectrum of complex litigation. Often, the literature is comprised of technical or scientific articles published in some journal with a claim that the published work product has been “peer reviewed.” Earlier articles have discussed the reliability of such out-of-court articles not authored by the testifier. Due to the increasing trend to “trial by literature,” it would be helpful to revisit the subject. Rather than diminish, the problems seem to have exacerbated.
In particular, there has been a global proliferation of journals whose quality review practices function differently from the classic model we used to know. Many so-called “open-access” journals that accept articles charge the author a fee. That dynamic seems to create potential conflicts of interest. Many of these journals publish articles without peer review. Others do a bogus peer review “sting” operation, like when a Harvard science journalist sent a science article to hundreds of journals. The shocking results are discussed below ' after presentation of some background information and findings.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.