<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	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:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>biotext.org.uk &#187; peer_review</title>
	<atom:link href="http://biotext.org.uk/tag/peer_review/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://biotext.org.uk</link>
	<description>Not a typewriter</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Sep 2010 17:47:14 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>What&#8217;s wrong with peer review</title>
		<link>http://biotext.org.uk/whats-wrong-with-peer-review/</link>
		<comments>http://biotext.org.uk/whats-wrong-with-peer-review/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 12:21:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Andrew</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Rants]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[peer_review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[publishing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://biotext.org.uk/?p=117</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Michael Nielsen has posted a longish article entitled &#8220;Three myths about scientific peer review&#8221;. It&#8217;s thought-provoking reading and will strike a chord with most researchers. He uses various examples from 20th-century science and before to question our assumptions about how the system works (and how well). There&#8217;s apparently a follow-up about the future of peer [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Michael Nielsen has posted a longish article entitled <a href="http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/?p=531">&#8220;Three myths about scientific peer review&#8221;</a>. It&#8217;s thought-provoking reading and will strike a chord with most researchers. He uses various examples from 20th-century science and before to question our assumptions about how the system works (and how well). There&#8217;s apparently a follow-up about the future of peer review, and a book, on the way.</p>
<p>Interestingly, many scientists will be happy to use the rigourous nature of peer review to defend science against its critics, or to demarcate &#8216;real&#8217; science from its fringe elements and impersonators, yet almost all will also have stories of the peer review system letting them down, or not being all it&#8217;s cracked up to be.¹ Perhaps it&#8217;s like adversarial party democracy &#8212; the least bad of all the current alternatives.</p>
<p>Andrew.</p>
<p>¹ N.B. I have no figures whatsoever to back up these claims.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://biotext.org.uk/whats-wrong-with-peer-review/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
