":An ""in-print"" (or rather ""in press"") article is not a reliable source.  It has to be published and referenceable where others can get a hold of it.  The errors in the abstract of the online version shows that it is obviously a pre-publication version and can't count.  (By the way, not even the TOC for the April issue of CASWJ has been revealed, so we just have your word for it that it is appearing at all.)

The New Developments book is so new that no libraries yet have it, but a look at the TOC online, as well as the article title, it looks like it is a review article, not a report of original research.

So, if you are hanging your hat on this references, well, the best that can be said is that jury is still out and DDP is still not been subjected to the judgment of the scientific community.

We can revisit this when the CASJW article is actually published. Until then, we cannot say that DDP is evidence-based (much less, that is accepted by the scientific community).  Of course, you may have other ""evidence"", but you have yet to cite any.

 

"