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/

Zendy Plus

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

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Agreeing with Mathieson and Gross’ observations in  Review for Error , this comment explores the avowed focus on process in appellate review and questions the accuracy of the review‐for procedural‐errors model. After proposing addtional explanations for the disjuncture between the theory of appellate review and the practical influence of substantive concerns, the comment suggests further avenues of research, both empirical and psychological.

What we say we do on review, what we actually do on review, why they are so dissimilar, and how we manage not to notice