<?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: As last of 12 promised Bulfone-Paus retractions appears, a (disappointing) report card on journal transparency</title>
	<atom:link href="http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2011/03/14/as-last-of-12-promised-bulfone-paus-retractions-appears-a-disappointing-report-card-on-journal-transparency/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2011/03/14/as-last-of-12-promised-bulfone-paus-retractions-appears-a-disappointing-report-card-on-journal-transparency/</link>
	<description>Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Jun 2013 19:55:16 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bernard Soares</title>
		<link>http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2011/03/14/as-last-of-12-promised-bulfone-paus-retractions-appears-a-disappointing-report-card-on-journal-transparency/#comment-1951</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bernard Soares]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Mar 2011 00:32:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/?p=2048#comment-1951</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[People are not interested in serious analysis, but rather prefer the trivial.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>People are not interested in serious analysis, but rather prefer the trivial.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: M. Kuehbacher</title>
		<link>http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2011/03/14/as-last-of-12-promised-bulfone-paus-retractions-appears-a-disappointing-report-card-on-journal-transparency/#comment-1930</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[M. Kuehbacher]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Mar 2011 17:20:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/?p=2048#comment-1930</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[That is the reason why those editors are not responsible for nuclear reactors. In order to prevent long-term damage, those journals should offer a short digital half-life (e.g., papers are only valid for one, two or six month) to their authors.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That is the reason why those editors are not responsible for nuclear reactors. In order to prevent long-term damage, those journals should offer a short digital half-life (e.g., papers are only valid for one, two or six month) to their authors.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
