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

Stijn van Weezel and Michael Spagat (2017) have critiqued our 2011 report of mortality in Iraq following the 2003 US-led invasion in this issue of Research &amp; Politics. In this response, we make our case for reporting both direct and indirect excess war-related deaths (while distinguishing the difference), defend our efforts to account for survival bias, and provide evidence for including all household-reported deaths, not just those cases where a death certificate can be demonstrated. We also point out Van Weezel and Spagat’s misunderstanding of our sample selection method, despite our citation of our separate paper that thoroughly describes our approach.

How to estimate (and not to estimate) war deaths: A reply to van Weezel and Spagat