<?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:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Scholarly publishing reels from a stunning blow</title>
	<atom:link href="http://stwem.com/2009/05/05/scholarly-publishing-reels-from-a-stunning-blow/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://stwem.com/2009/05/05/scholarly-publishing-reels-from-a-stunning-blow/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:31:21 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Headlines for May 3- May 8 &#124; Health Content Advisors</title>
		<link>http://stwem.com/2009/05/05/scholarly-publishing-reels-from-a-stunning-blow/#comment-38</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Headlines for May 3- May 8 &#124; Health Content Advisors]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 May 2009 16:50:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stwem.com/?p=263#comment-38</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] » Scholarly publishing reels from a stunning blow « [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] » Scholarly publishing reels from a stunning blow « [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason</title>
		<link>http://stwem.com/2009/05/05/scholarly-publishing-reels-from-a-stunning-blow/#comment-35</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jason]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2009 16:13:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stwem.com/?p=263#comment-35</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An interesting, and disheartening, post and report. As an editor of academic works, I often suffer the inadequacies of a peer-review process that is no more than rubber stamping to maintain volume. Too much of the content I work on is so intellectually weak that I long ago gave up believing the gatekeeper argument. And as a publisher, I saw plenty of personality- and relationship-based peer review. But I&#039;d not come across corrupt peer review until now. Sigh.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>An interesting, and disheartening, post and report. As an editor of academic works, I often suffer the inadequacies of a peer-review process that is no more than rubber stamping to maintain volume. Too much of the content I work on is so intellectually weak that I long ago gave up believing the gatekeeper argument. And as a publisher, I saw plenty of personality- and relationship-based peer review. But I&#8217;d not come across corrupt peer review until now. Sigh.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

