Blog Editor


  • Copyright 2005-20012 by Adam Kolber
    All rights reserved.

« Paris Hilton and Punishment Experience | Main | Two Situationism Articles on SSRN »


The interested reader should look critically at this article, for the scholarship therein is questionable. It relies on reference to Rosen's NYT article to identify emerging themes in the law, and as a reference to some doctrinal issues. In fact, it relies extremely heavily on the Rosen article without appropriate acknowledgment. For example, the second paragraph on page 3 is nearly identical to a paragraph in the Rosen article, but is not paraphrased or block quoted, which would be the proper format. As to the neuroscience, it relies heavily on secondary and non-neuroscience sources for information. Overall, this article is thinly researched (I haven't counted the total number of unique citations, but they are not many), and the analysis leaves much to be desired. I would not consider this article a substantial contribution to the neuroscience and law literature. I hope the editors at the journal can appropriately edit this article to at least correct the scholarly integrity.

The comments to this entry are closed.