English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

We appreciate the response to our paper (1) from Weiland et al. (2). Rather than a point-by-point rebuttal, we focus our reply on three fundamental issues in their response. First, the response overinterprets our study. We claimed that data rebut common perceptions of section 7 consultations, imposing a heavy regulatory burden nationwide. That claim need not rest on an “economic” analysis because it is reasonably inferable from our key findings: only one jeopardy opinion out of 88,290 consultations and a median consultation duration well below the 135-d deadline. An economic analysis would help quantify the monetary costs and benefits of consultations, but our study never intended …

Reply to Weiland et al.: The point is to bring data to inform policy, not to rely solely on anecdotes