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

Fifteen years after the publication of the Srebrenica report by the Netherlands Institute for War Documentation (NIOD), the Srebrenica genocide has not become subject of more scholarly and historical research. On the contrary, academics prefer to keep their hands off the topic, confining themselves to ‘theoretical’, ‘reflexive’, or ‘moralistic’ reflections on the work done by the NIOD team. Symptomatic of the current state of inertia and diminishing professional standards is the recent book by the Dutch historian and psychologist Eelco Runia in which he attacks the NIOD report from a psychoanalytic standpoint.

Scholars (Not) Investigating Srebrenica. Academic Feuds and Other Shortcomings