<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
  <channel>
    <title>Nature Network - double blinding</title>
    <description>The latest taggings for double blinding</description>
    <link>http://network.nature.com/announcements</link>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <ttl>40</ttl>
    <item>
      <title>Gender Differences: Got More Data</title>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[Bob O'Hara - I ended up at Nature Networks thanks to a "post on my previous blog":http://deepthoughtsandsilliness.blogspot.com/2008/01/gender-differences-need-more-data.html about a paper in "TREE":http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/30339/description?navopenmenu=1 which claimed that the proportion of female authors was increased by double-blond peer review[1]. In a nutshell, I argued that there]]>
      </description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
