<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
  <channel>
    <title>Nature Network - publish</title>
    <description>The latest taggings for publish</description>
    <link>http://network.nature.com/announcements</link>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <ttl>40</ttl>
    <item>
      <title>I will participate in the Elsevier Article 2.0 Contest</title>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[Martin Fenner - We have been talking a lot about Web 2.0 approaches for scientific papers. Now Elsevier announced an "Article 2.0 Contest":http://article20.elsevier.com/contest/home.htm: _Demonstrate your best ideas for how scientific research articles should be presented on the web and compete to win great]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>On Guest authors and Ghostwriters</title>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[Martin Fenner - The legal disputes following the withdrawal from the market of two drugs for the treatment of pain (the COX-2 inhibitors rofecoxib and valdecoxib) have led to another critical examination of the paper publishing process. I have "written":http://network.nature.com/blogs/user/mfenner/2008/02/23/should-peer-review-be-confidential in February about]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Duplicate Papers: another trick to improve your publication record</title>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[Martin Fenner - Nature today "published":http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/451397a a report on the prevalence of duplicate papers in Medline. In this report Mounir Errami and Harold Garner estimate that there as many as 200.000 duplicate papers in Medline or 1% of all published papers. The article]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Science 2.0: the Scientific American perspective</title>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[Martin Fenner - M. Mitchell Waldrop has posted a draft version of an article called "Science 2.0: Great New Tool, or Great Risk?":http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=science-2-point-0-great-new-tool-or-great-risk. The article will appear in "Scientific American":http://www.sciam.com/ (which, like the Nature Publishing Group, is owned by Mamillian). In this article]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Frustrations of a scientist</title>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[Martin Fenner - We usually look forward to a well-written paper about central aspects of your research. But sometimes you are frustrated. Maybe someone has done (almost) the same experiments, but was quicker in getting the work published. Then you can at least]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Joint first authors</title>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[Martin Fenner - Journal articles have more and more authors. As part of this trend we also see joint first authors, i.e. "Jim and John contributed equally to this work". I personally try to avoid this whenever possible, because it looks like a]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>STIX: Fonts for electronic and print publishing</title>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[Martin Fenner - The STIX Project has finally "released":http://www.stixfonts.org/StixFontsPR103107FINAL.pdf a first beta version of their fonts. STIX stands for Scientific and Technical Information Exchange and the fonts were designed specifically for publishing scientific or mathematical texts. The "STIX Project":http://www.stixfonts.org was started more than]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>German Max Planck Society cancels licensing agreement with Springer</title>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[Martin Fenner - Last week the German Max Planck Society (MPG) "cancelled":http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2007/pressRelease20071022/index.html their licensing agreement with Springer. Starting January 1st, MPG scientists no longer have access to the 1200 Springer journals through the *SpringerLink* interface. This is an important announcement, because the MPG]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>the "scientific" method</title>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[Kristin Stephan - !http://www.mnscience.org/image.php?id=97! I am one of those people that came straight into the PhD after undergrad. Sure, I had some "research experience", but needless to say, the reality of research was far from what I thought it to be. One of]]>
      </description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
