<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
  <channel>
    <title>Nature Network - peer review</title>
    <description>The latest taggings for peer review</description>
    <link>http://network.nature.com/announcements</link>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <ttl>40</ttl>
    <item>
      <title>Web 2.0 approach to scientific publication</title>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[Maxine Clarke - "A discussion at FriendFeed":http://friendfeed.com/e/544d6911-c766-ff26-c539-175414d950e8/Nascent-PLoS-ONE-Take-Two/ evolved in part into a question about the role of automatic web-based tools to replace the hierarchy of the journal publishing system. "*Bill Hooker*":http://network.nature.com/profile/sennoma wrote: 'it's time to do away entirely with the *whole concept* of]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>posting raw data of peer reviewed experiments in lab websites</title>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[Matt Brown - xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx I have been thinking about this for quite sometime. It is a given fact that the volume of peer reviewed publications churned out in any field of research would always continue to increase.....But peer reviewed research need not always]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Dissatisfaction with peer-review process</title>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[Maxine Clarke - Alberto Talamo writes: I had one article rejected with only one reviewer and the editor did not want to contact a second reviewer. I know who was the reviewer and also why he rejected my paper, since he became now]]>
      </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>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>James Butcher</title>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[James Butcher - ]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>0.5% of your taxes. To whom, and why?</title>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[Massimo Pinto - Italians are filing their taxes in these days, and they are given the opportunity to choose the charity to which they wish to donate 0.5% of it. "Cinque per mille":http://www.5-per-mille.it/ translates to 5‰, or 0.5%. It does add up. You]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <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>
    <item>
      <title>Cascades in peer-review</title>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[Maxine Clarke - Juan Carlos Lopez, Editor of _Nature Medicine_, came under some attack for his talk and Spoonful of Medicine blog post identifying open access publishing as one of several publishing models. He's therefore writing some additional posts on the topic at]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>What the editor's job is all about</title>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[Maxine Clarke - Nature Cell Biology has published two editorials about the peer-review process in its most recent two issues. (These editorials are both free-access and can be seen "here":http://www.nature.com/ncb/journal/v10/n3/full/ncb0308-247.html and "here":http://www.nature.com/ncb/journal/v10/n4/full/ncb0408-371.html.) The second of these concerns "what makes a good referee's report".]]>
      </description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
