Harnessing the utility of preprints may solve many of these issues in academic publishing. Preprints are defined broadly as research documents made freely available via a public server (e.g., arXiv; PsyArXiv) before publication in a journal. They accelerate dissemination of research, allow researchers to gain early feedback, and increase access. With many concerns surrounding their use unfounded (e.g., scooping 10,11 ), preprints can reduce publication bias by permitting researchers to deposit their work regardless of its publication 'success'. Through not-for-profit preprint servers, financially supported through institutions, organisations or donations, preprints fulfil the criteria of green open access detached from the typically large profit margins of gold open access publishing, which charge either a subscription fee to readers or an article processing charge to authors 12 . From this perspective, preprints can also create a more equitable and diverse research landscape, aiding better access and discoverability of research for those in developing countries (e.g., AfriArXiv; although additional support for such preprint servers is required 13 ). Ranking systems do not exist with each preprint server aligned with its discipline and quality control maintained through version tracking, moderation, and community feedback (including error detection) 14 . Services such as 'Review Commons' and 'Peer Community In' offer a platform for independent peer-review of preprints, facilitating author-directed submission of refereed preprints to affiliate journals. Such in-house oversight protects the community from predatory journals and ensures homogeneous policies and procedures. Furthermore, the offshoot of 'PCI Registered Reports' promotes rigour, reproducibility and replication by reviewing and recommending Registered Report preprints 15 .Problems associated with academic publishing signal a strong incentive for change. Preprints can mitigate many of these concerns by reimagining traditional publication and research evaluation processes and progressing a more equitable, open access future. Journals should not see preprint servers as a threat but rather an aide to an improved research landscape.
Both the right of indigenous peoples to cultural integrity and the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatments and punishments are vital features of the character of modern international law. However, these two essential components of modern international law do not always appear to see eye to eye with regards to corporal punishment as a criminal sanction in indigenous communities. Practices such as flogging and the stocks would normally be considered to fall within the torture spectrum or at least some kind of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under the various international instruments covering such crimes. However, notions of cultural integrity and identity cause uncertainty as to what status these practices should actually have in the context of indigenous peoples' rights. This article seeks to explain and offer a way to solve this disagreement. Specifically, while claiming that indigenous corporal punishment should be judged under the same standard as any other form of corporal punishment, it also proposes that, instead of a merely punitive approach, states should seek to establish transitional consultation processes under ILO Convention 169 to seek to discourage indigenous practices that breach international standards.
En el presente artículo, los autores analizan la recepción de la doctrina de la nulidad ab initio de normas internas de amnistía contrarias a la Convención Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, trazada por la Corte Interamericana a partir del caso Barrios Altos. En ese orden de ideas, se toman en cuenta los distintos procesos sociales y políticos gestados en los países adscritos a dicho órgano internacional de justicia, que serían los receptores de los contenidos de las sentencias emitidas. Sin embargo, como es señalado por los propios autores, cada contexto ha dado lugar a una asimilación particular e, incluso, a una oposición tajante de los órganos intra-estatales.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.