<?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: Nature comes clean about retractions and why they&#8217;re on the rise</title>
	<atom:link href="http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2010/11/04/nature-comes-clean-about-retractions-and-why-theyre-on-the-rise/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2010/11/04/nature-comes-clean-about-retractions-and-why-theyre-on-the-rise/</link>
	<description>Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 08:26:21 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Pyshnov</title>
		<link>http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2010/11/04/nature-comes-clean-about-retractions-and-why-theyre-on-the-rise/#comment-521</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Michael Pyshnov]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Nov 2010 18:44:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/?p=708#comment-521</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I was unable to get the obviously plagiarised paper retracted. You hit the wall that shouldn&#039;t be there. You only see the cases published that are approved by publishing business. See another case:
http://www.universitytorontofraud.com
There is my correspondence with the editor there and there is shocking correspondence with COPE: they falsified the definition of plagiarism insisting that unpublished research cannot be plagiarised:

http://www.universitytorontofraud.com/committee.htm

I guess everybody knows what COPE is, so now you will know more...]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was unable to get the obviously plagiarised paper retracted. You hit the wall that shouldn&#8217;t be there. You only see the cases published that are approved by publishing business. See another case:<br />
<a href="http://www.universitytorontofraud.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.universitytorontofraud.com</a><br />
There is my correspondence with the editor there and there is shocking correspondence with COPE: they falsified the definition of plagiarism insisting that unpublished research cannot be plagiarised:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.universitytorontofraud.com/committee.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.universitytorontofraud.com/committee.htm</a></p>
<p>I guess everybody knows what COPE is, so now you will know more&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ivanoransky</title>
		<link>http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2010/11/04/nature-comes-clean-about-retractions-and-why-theyre-on-the-rise/#comment-494</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[ivanoransky]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Nov 2010 15:51:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/?p=708#comment-494</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Fixed -- thank you.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Fixed &#8212; thank you.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ivanoransky</title>
		<link>http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2010/11/04/nature-comes-clean-about-retractions-and-why-theyre-on-the-rise/#comment-493</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[ivanoransky]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Nov 2010 15:46:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/?p=708#comment-493</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Fixed, thanks. You may want to let your Nature colleagues know too, as we took that description from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v468/n7320/full/468006b.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the editorial&lt;/a&gt;.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Fixed, thanks. You may want to let your Nature colleagues know too, as we took that description from <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v468/n7320/full/468006b.html" rel="nofollow">the editorial</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Schlupp</title>
		<link>http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2010/11/04/nature-comes-clean-about-retractions-and-why-theyre-on-the-rise/#comment-492</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Schlupp]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Nov 2010 15:35:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/?p=708#comment-492</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Schoen is German, Batlogg is the Austrian.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Schoen is German, Batlogg is the Austrian.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eugenie Samuel Reich</title>
		<link>http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2010/11/04/nature-comes-clean-about-retractions-and-why-theyre-on-the-rise/#comment-491</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Eugenie Samuel Reich]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Nov 2010 15:17:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/?p=708#comment-491</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As my book, Plastic Fantastic, reports, Schon is German, not Austrian.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As my book, Plastic Fantastic, reports, Schon is German, not Austrian.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
