<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
  <channel>
    <title>Nature Network - blogosphere</title>
    <description>The latest taggings for blogosphere</description>
    <link>http://network.nature.com/announcements</link>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <ttl>40</ttl>
    <item>
      <title>Women as career scientists -- 21 August 2008</title>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[Maxine Clarke - Should there be affirmative action for women in science? Heather Buschman, a science writer for the Consortium for Functional Glycomics, poses that question "at the Naturejobs careers advice forum":http://network.nature.com/forums/naturejobs/2081. "Wouldn't it do more harm than good," she wonders, "to punish]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Manners in the blogosphere -- 24 July 2008</title>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[Maxine Clarke - Blogosphere etiquette comes into question. "We seem to be at a critical juncture concerning the intersection of blogs and other Web 2.0 technologies with science," writes associate editor Noah Gray at "Action Potential, the _Nature Neuroscience_ blog":http://blogs.nature.com/nn/actionpotential/2008/07/getting_out_character.html. The anonymity of]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Misconduct survey stirs the pot -- 3 July 2008</title>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[Maxine Clarke - An Editorial and Commentary in the 19 June issue of Nature (_Nature_ *453*, 957; 2008 and _Nature_ *453*, 980–982; 2008) are hotly debated at "Nature Network's News and Opinion forum":http://tinyurl.com/5onqpl. In the Commentary, Sandra Titus, director of intramural research at]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Downloads as publication metric -- 26 June 2008</title>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[Maxine Clarke - The citations-versus-downloads conversation continues. _Nature Neuroscience_'s editors have analysed the number of downloads a paper receives immediately after its appearance online, and find a high correlation with its citation frequency years after publication. Associate editor Noah Gray provides the details]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Becoming a peer-reviewer -- 19 June 2008</title>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[Maxine Clarke - "How does one become a reviewer for Nature journals?" asks Wen Jiang of Canada's University of Toronto in _Nature Nanotechnology_'s "Nature Network forum":http://network.nature.com/forums/nnano/1761. Most graduate students and postdocs help their supervisors to review papers, he notes, but how can they]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Citation in science -- 12 June 2008</title>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[Maxine Clarke - Does research need new measuring sticks? The Nature Network group "Citation in Science":http://network.nature.com/london/forum/citation-science hopes to find common ground among researchers, funders, information providers and others concerning the measures of research output. Allan Sudlow of the British Library lists common ways]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Consequences of error -- 5 June 2008</title>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[Maxine Clarke - Does a scientist who has had three patents in the past five years, but only three papers, each cited just three times, deserve more recognition than one with five _Nature_ papers and 1,000 citations? Does a scientist who works in]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>An author's road to success -- 29 May 2008</title>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[Maxine Clarke - The editors of _Nature Nanotechnology_ invited Ennio Tasciotti, the author of a recent paper in the journal (E. Tasciotti _et al. "Nature Nanotech._ *3*, 151–157; 2008":http://www.nature.com/nnano/journal/v3/n3/abs/nnano.2008.34.html), to share his story of the road to success — from planning experiments to]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Peer review by taxpayer -- 22 May 2008</title>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[Maxine Clarke - Massimo Pinto of Italy's Istituto Superiore di Sanità in Rome has discovered an unusual qualification for being a peer reviewer of research done at Italian institutions: paying your taxes. Since 2006, Italians have been allowed to donate 0.5% of their]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Plant informatics -- 15 May 2008</title>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[Maxine Clarke - Scientific informatics programmes require massive financial investment, so it is difficult for governments to decide which ones to support. One programme that has been successful in securing funding is the "iPlant Collaborative":http://iplantcollaborative.org/ — a 'cyberinfrastructure' collaborative for the plant sciences.]]>
      </description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
