<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Flawed Research: The Hidden Weakness of Peer Review &amp; More Falsified Stem Cells</title>
	<atom:link href="http://docinthemachine.com/2007/02/15/flawedpeers/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://docinthemachine.com/2007/02/15/flawedpeers/</link>
	<description>Transforming medicine and fertility with tomorrow’s technology</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 May 2012 12:50:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joy Russell</title>
		<link>http://docinthemachine.com/2007/02/15/flawedpeers/#comment-261823</link>
		<dc:creator>Joy Russell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Jul 2011 08:11:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://docinthemachine.com/2007/02/15/flawedpeers/#comment-261823</guid>
		<description>this peer review process thing is creating more false data about the group of people that are way too stupid and lazy to get out of jury duty....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>this peer review process thing is creating more false data about the group of people that are way too stupid and lazy to get out of jury duty&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: report internet fraud</title>
		<link>http://docinthemachine.com/2007/02/15/flawedpeers/#comment-106687</link>
		<dc:creator>report internet fraud</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Jun 2008 20:13:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://docinthemachine.com/2007/02/15/flawedpeers/#comment-106687</guid>
		<description>[...] peer review process that allow crap research to get published. A real wake up for those trying to dhttp://docinthemachine.com/2007/02/15/flawedpeers/Guardian eCommerce Report Internet Fraud File A Complaint ...Committed to consumer online safety, [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] peer review process that allow crap research to get published. A real wake up for those trying to dhttp://docinthemachine.com/2007/02/15/flawedpeers/Guardian eCommerce Report Internet Fraud File A Complaint &#8230;Committed to consumer online safety, [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: post mi stem cell research</title>
		<link>http://docinthemachine.com/2007/02/15/flawedpeers/#comment-103440</link>
		<dc:creator>post mi stem cell research</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 May 2008 06:31:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://docinthemachine.com/2007/02/15/flawedpeers/#comment-103440</guid>
		<description>[...] peer review process that allow crap research to get published. A real wake up for those trying to dhttp://docinthemachine.com/2007/02/15/flawedpeers/Stem Cell Research and Therapy Resource Center News - IndexRead full-text medical journal articles [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] peer review process that allow crap research to get published. A real wake up for those trying to dhttp://docinthemachine.com/2007/02/15/flawedpeers/Stem Cell Research and Therapy Resource Center News &#8211; IndexRead full-text medical journal articles [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim</title>
		<link>http://docinthemachine.com/2007/02/15/flawedpeers/#comment-3345</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Feb 2007 21:21:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://docinthemachine.com/2007/02/15/flawedpeers/#comment-3345</guid>
		<description>So what is the answer?  NATURE tried open review and it was something of a bust.

PLoS does open journals, people have also asked us if we will post them.  But if internet commentary lacks value, does the community just accept that all review systems ( not just medicine ) are flawed and stick with the least flawed now?

There are exceptions where bad stuff passes review but what % is that?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So what is the answer?  NATURE tried open review and it was something of a bust.</p>
<p>PLoS does open journals, people have also asked us if we will post them.  But if internet commentary lacks value, does the community just accept that all review systems ( not just medicine ) are flawed and stick with the least flawed now?</p>
<p>There are exceptions where bad stuff passes review but what % is that?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pure Pedantry</title>
		<link>http://docinthemachine.com/2007/02/15/flawedpeers/#comment-3255</link>
		<dc:creator>Pure Pedantry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Feb 2007 02:28:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://docinthemachine.com/2007/02/15/flawedpeers/#comment-3255</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Grand Rounds, vol. 3 no. 22&lt;/strong&gt;

Hi everyone, and welcome to Grand Rounds, vol. 3 no. 22. Since the Oscars are this Sunday -- and I know we all look forward to this yearly 4 hour marathon of farcical self-absorption -- this edition of Grand Rounds...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Grand Rounds, vol. 3 no. 22</strong></p>
<p>Hi everyone, and welcome to Grand Rounds, vol. 3 no. 22. Since the Oscars are this Sunday &#8212; and I know we all look forward to this yearly 4 hour marathon of farcical self-absorption &#8212; this edition of Grand Rounds&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

