There are published papers in
academic journals claiming that greater access to the morning - after pill would cut unwanted pregnancies by fifty per cent.
Not exact matches
Science Careers» sister site, ScienceInsider, reported yesterday afternoon that 150 scientists and 75 scientific groups have co-signed an open letter protesting what they
claim is an overreliance on
journal impact factors by funding agencies,
academic institutions,
journals, and organizations that provide publication metrics.
You are
claiming the science isn't valid because: «Regarding peer reviewed scientific
journals, these are edited (that is, controlled) by and written by
academics, the overwhelming majority of whom are left wingers.
While Happer
claimed that the review of the paper was «more rigorous than the peer review for most
journals,» he also told undercover reports that most members of the
Academic Advisory Council were too busy to comment:
We've compiled a partial set of media outlets, books, or
academic journals that, directly or indirectly, continue to reference Brulle's
claim.
Here is a partial set of media outlets, books, or
academic journals that, directly or indirectly, continue to reference Brulle's
claim.
There are various
claims out there about how much you can quote with the confines of fair use, but nobody really know in the
academic context (as far as I know, there is no case law in the US that tests how much quoting you can do in an
academic journal).