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.
Background
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
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?