REFERENCES
- Gerstein, M., M. Seringhaus, and S. Fields. 2007. Structured digital abstract makes text mining easy. Nature 447 (7141):142.
- Gould, S. J. 2003 The hedgehog, the fox, and the magister's pox: Mending the gap between science and the humanities. New York, NY: Three Rivers Press.
- Greenbaum, D. 2014. Patent law and boilerplate, cautionary language, caveats, qualifications, provisos, criterions, repudiations, stipulations, macros, disclaimers, rote text, broadening language, formulaic text, and restatements of aphorisms: Useless, helpful or harmful? Lexis Emerging Issues 7179.
- Greenbaum, D. 2016. Relations between science and law. Jerusalem Post, December 3. Available at: http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Relations-between-science-and-law-474341
- Greenbaum, D., and M. Gerstein. 2009. Grappling with the gulf. Science 323 (5911):210.
- Kueffer, C., and B. M. H. Larson. 2014. Responsible use of language in scientific writing and science communication. BioScience 64 (8): 719–24.
- Montgomery, S. 2004. Of towers, walls, and fields: Perspectives on language in science. Science 303 (5662):1333–35.
- Nowak, A. 2016. Demystifying ambiguity in legislative writing. Statute Law Review 37 (2):164–71.
- Pollman, T. 2001. Building a tower of Babel or building a discipline? Talking about legal writing. Marquette Law Review 85:887.
- Schuck, P. H. 1993. Multi-culturalism redux: Science, law, and politics. Yale Law & Policy Review 11 (1):1–46.
- Snow, C. P. 1959. The two cultures. London, UK: Cambridge University Press.
- Volokh, A., 1997. N guilty men. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 14 6(1):173–216.
- Wilson, E. O. 1998. Consilience. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
- Wszalek, J. 2017. Ethical and legal concerns associated with the comprehension of legal language and concepts. AJOB Neuroscience 8 (1):26–36.
- Zalesin, J. 2015. The 6 phrases that should be banned from legal writing. Law360, October 7. Available at: http://www.law360.com/articles/701528/the-6-phrases-that-should-be-banned-from-legal-writing