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 Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

. That estimates of the number of undiscovered deposits must consistent with the grade/tonnage models constitutes a large part of the critique. Ludington's review concludes with the following statement: "There is some good work reflected in this paper, but I cannot recommend that it be published in it's present form, for two reasons. First, there is an underlying misunderstanding of the basic premise of the method you are criticizing, and second, you bring up numerous issues which have to do with policy, and not with science. Publication of these matters, should at least be separated; our open-file report system is no place for dissent from policy directions." REPLY TO LUDINGTON'S REVIEW (VERSION 1) BY BULTMAN ET AL. In reply to Ludington's comments, Bultman et al. reply to the above quotation: "...the authors would like to point out that the reviewer has erroneously reached the wrong conclusion that the authors misunderstand the basic premise of the three-step method of mineral resource assessment (henceforth "the OMR method"). The authors believe that the reviewer's conclusion is based on the reviewer's own misconceptions about the OMR method."

Evaluation of the United States Geological Survey's Three-Step assessment methodology