<?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 to peer</title>
    <description>The latest taggings for peer to peer</description>
    <link>http://network.nature.com/announcements</link>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <ttl>40</ttl>
    <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>
    <item>
      <title>Science by blogging -- 10 April 2008</title>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[Maxine Clarke - Scientists know more than what they publish in peer-reviewed journals. And blogs can be a good medium for disseminating this tacit knowledge, says Gavin Schmidt of the NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies at Columbia University, New York, in a]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Double-blind peer-review -- 21 February 2008</title>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[Maxine Clarke - In the space of a few days, _Nature_'s Editorial on double-blind peer review (_Nature_ *451*, 605–606; 2008) had gathered almost 50 comments "on the Peer-to-Peer blog":http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer/2008/02/working_doubleblind.html#comments. The Editorial concluded that double-blind peer review (in which both authors and reviewers are]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Independence of peer review -- 4 October 2007</title>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[Maxine Clarke - Robert Higgs, a political economist at the Independent Institute, "writes on Peer-to-Peer:":http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer/2007/09/peer_review_and_scientific_con.html "Any editor of a peer-reviewed journal who desires to reject or accept a submission can easily do so by choosing appropriate referees. Unfortunately, personal vendettas, ideological conflicts, professional]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Reviewing reviewer performance -- 26 July 2007</title>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[Maxine Clarke - "Peer-to-Peer":http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer/2007/07/reviewer_statistics.html highlights a post on the pseudonymous FemaleScienceProfessor blog about the benefits (or lack thereof) of reviewing reviewer performance. FemaleScienceProfessor is also an editor for a journal. She writes: "I did a quick, statistically invalid analysis of the reviewer data]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The Niche -- 21 June 2007</title>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[Maxine Clarke - Editors of "The Niche":http://tinyurl.com/2rppdm, the blog of the new website Nature Reports Stem Cells, are asking how _Nature_ could improve its peer-review process for papers about cloning to prevent publication of fraudulent data. After the Hwang scandal in 2006, _Nature_]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Reviewers' web tracks -- 31 May 2007</title>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[Maxine Clarke - Electronic communication among reviewers and publishers or granting agencies threatens peer reviewers' anonymity, according to "an entry on _Nature_'s Peer-to-Peer blog this week":http://tinyurl.com/3ae8p6. Cristofre Martin of St George's University in Grenada, West Indies, and Kenneth Storey of Carleton University in]]>
      </description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
