After all, if the government won't get an indictment for al-Awlaki — who, given all the evidence Sullivan cites, should be very indictable — why would it get one for someone who is more marginal, and against whom it has a more ambiguous case that is harder to prove?
However, despite their determination by Liao (1989, 1991, 1996), all the voucher specimens cited should be identified as B. monoica sensu Ohba and Akiyama (2014).
Although a feature story is subjective, all facts it cites should be objectively true (unless it's clear the writer is playing with the boundaries between fact and fiction, the way Hunter S. Thompson did, for example).
In the section 'Previous publication' the reference number cited should be 26 (not 22).
Reference 10, as the only human study cited, should be explored more than the rat and monkey studies.
In this study, Takahashi and Oishi (2000) used a very large dose (1 g/kg), so their results, although consistent with the others cited, should be repeated at more relevant doses.
Here the papers cited should be the Nature 1978 paper from Ford Doolittle and the "Exon Theory of Genes" paper from Gilbert in 1987, which best represent the early phases of the introns-early theory.
In the text of the manuscript, a reference should be cited by author and year of publication; no more than two authors may be cited per reference; 'et al' should be used if there are more than two authors (Ferrier & Lunkes, 2003; Wiersdorff et al, 2000).
Claudio Andre Barbosa de Lira's affiliation should be "Setor de Fisiologia Humana e do Exercício" and his name should be cited as "de Lira CA".
So what trend would I cite, should I be asked for another update?
