<?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/">
<channel>
<title>AgnosticWeb.com - Another slam at peer review</title>
<link>https://agnosticweb.com/</link>
<description>An Agnostic&#039;s Brief Guide to the Universe</description>
<language>en</language>
<item>
<title>Another slam at peer review (reply)</title>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This article on climate science shows  politization and  group think. The countries who control the UN IPPC are third world and they want power and money, and use climate scares to opperate. Peer review is vicious here:-http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904537404576554750502443800.html?KEYWORDS=Anne+Jolis</p>
]]></content:encoded>
<link>https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=7228</link>
<guid>https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=7228</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 07 Sep 2011 17:14:16 +0000</pubDate>
<category>Introduction</category><dc:creator>David Turell</dc:creator>
</item>
<item>
<title>Another slam at peer review (reply)</title>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>This article by David Colquhoun (and another by George Monbiot) have stirred up quite a storm about peer review and the academic journal business in The Guardian. The extensive comments are as good as the article.&amp;#13;&amp;#10;&gt; &amp;#13;&amp;#10;&gt; <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/sep/05/publish-perish-peer-review-science-&amp;#13;&amp;#10;I&amp;apos;m">http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/sep/05/publish-perish-peer-review-science-&amp;#...</a> so old there was no peer review when my 34 articles in the medical literature were published. I think the process is terrible. Group think. What must Kuhn think spinning in his grave?  George, thanks for your contributions. they have been great.</p>
</blockquote>]]></content:encoded>
<link>https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=7222</link>
<guid>https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=7222</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 06 Sep 2011 01:41:13 +0000</pubDate>
<category>Introduction</category><dc:creator>David Turell</dc:creator>
</item>
<item>
<title>Another slam at peer review (reply)</title>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This article by David Colquhoun (and another by George Monbiot) have stirred up quite a storm about peer review and the academic journal business in The Guardian. The extensive comments are as good as the article.-http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/sep/05/publish-perish-peer-review-science-Since I used to earn my living by doing proof-reading for scientific journals I have some familiarity with the academic publishing business. During the time I was working all the smaller companies were gradually eaten up by the big corporations, such as Elsevier.-Colquhoun is a campaigner against homeopathy, acupuncture and other alternative medical treatments that have no adequate evidential backing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
<link>https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=7219</link>
<guid>https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=7219</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 05 Sep 2011 22:46:41 +0000</pubDate>
<category>Introduction</category><dc:creator>George Jelliss</dc:creator>
</item>
<item>
<title>Another slam at peer review (reply)</title>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Another slam at peer review. Scientific fraud:-There was an article published online by CNN highlighting the finding by the British journal, BMJ, that Dr. Andrew Wakefield&amp;apos;s sensational study linking autism to childhood vaccinations was a &amp;quot;complete fraud&amp;quot;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
<link>https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=5583</link>
<guid>https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=5583</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 08 Jan 2011 02:26:32 +0000</pubDate>
<category>Introduction</category><dc:creator>David Turell</dc:creator>
</item>
<item>
<title>kuchnie warszawa (reply)</title>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Hello, finally registered after 6 months of reading!&amp;#13;&amp;#10;&gt; &amp;#13;&amp;#10;&gt; &amp;#13;&amp;#10;&gt; &lt;a href=http://kuchniewarszawa.waw.pl&gt;kuchnie warszawa&lt;/a&gt;-Welcome, and join in!</p>
</blockquote>]]></content:encoded>
<link>https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=5448</link>
<guid>https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=5448</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 18 Dec 2010 21:02:59 +0000</pubDate>
<category>Introduction</category><dc:creator>David Turell</dc:creator>
</item>
<item>
<title>kuchnie warszawa (reply)</title>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello, finally registered after 6 months of reading!-&amp;#13;&amp;#10;&lt;a href=http://kuchniewarszawa.waw.pl&gt;kuchnie warszawa&lt;/a&gt;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
<link>https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=5444</link>
<guid>https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=5444</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 18 Dec 2010 20:41:02 +0000</pubDate>
<category>Introduction</category><dc:creator>kwtrineeefforne</dc:creator>
</item>
<item>
<title>Another slam at peer review</title>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From Slate: a review of its history (about 25 years old) with good negative observations:-http://www.slate.com/id/2116244/</p>
]]></content:encoded>
<link>https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=5414</link>
<guid>https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=5414</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 15 Dec 2010 15:07:59 +0000</pubDate>
<category>Introduction</category><dc:creator>David Turell</dc:creator>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
