<?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>EMFacts Consultancy &#187; Peer review problems</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.emfacts.com/category/peer-review-problems/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.emfacts.com</link>
	<description>Health issues related to electromagnetic radiation exposure and chemical exposure</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 02:19:02 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
		<item>
		<title>Beware the creeping cracks of bias (with implications for bioelectromagnetics research)</title>
		<link>http://www.emfacts.com/2012/05/beware-the-creeping-cracks-of-bias-with-implications-for-bioelectromagnetics-research/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=beware-the-creeping-cracks-of-bias-with-implications-for-bioelectromagnetics-research</link>
		<comments>http://www.emfacts.com/2012/05/beware-the-creeping-cracks-of-bias-with-implications-for-bioelectromagnetics-research/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 May 2012 10:53:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>EMFacts</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[-Mailing List]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Corporate influence on Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Peer review problems]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.emfacts.com/?p=3117</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Article published in NATURE, 10 May, 2012: Beware the creeping cracks of bias Evidence is mounting that research is riddled with systematic errors. Left unchecked, this could erode public trust, warns Daniel Sarewitz. 10 MAY 2012 VOL 485 NATURE 149 Excerpt Alarming cracks are starting to penetrate deep into the scientific edifice. They threaten the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.emfacts.com/2012/05/beware-the-creeping-cracks-of-bias-with-implications-for-bioelectromagnetics-research/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>In Peer-Review we trust? Do peer-review journals perpetuate bad science</title>
		<link>http://www.emfacts.com/2012/02/in-peer-review-we-trust-do-peer-review-journals-perpetuate-bad-science/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=in-peer-review-we-trust-do-peer-review-journals-perpetuate-bad-science</link>
		<comments>http://www.emfacts.com/2012/02/in-peer-review-we-trust-do-peer-review-journals-perpetuate-bad-science/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:34:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>EMFacts</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[-Mailing List]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Peer review problems]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.emfacts.com/?p=2482</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The latest from Dariusz Leszczynski: In Peer-Review we trust? Do peer-review journals perpetuate bad science Excerpt: HELSINKI, Finland, February 13, 2012–A recent look at the Danish Cohort and the Greek proteomics study brought to light the eternal problem of the quality of peer-review in scientific journals. Should we trust in peer-reviewed articles published in scientific [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.emfacts.com/2012/02/in-peer-review-we-trust-do-peer-review-journals-perpetuate-bad-science/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>1366: IARC Welcomes Industry to RF ­Cancer Review</title>
		<link>http://www.emfacts.com/2011/03/1366-iarc-welcomes-industry-to-rf-%c2%adcancer-review/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=1366-iarc-welcomes-industry-to-rf-%25c2%25adcancer-review</link>
		<comments>http://www.emfacts.com/2011/03/1366-iarc-welcomes-industry-to-rf-%c2%adcancer-review/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Mar 2011 21:41:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>EMFacts</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cell phone news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Corporate influence on Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Peer review problems]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tobacco science and the art of spin]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/?p=1403</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[From Louis Slesin, Microwave News: When Mike Repacholi led the World Health Organization&#8217;s (WHO) EMF project, he took industry money and gave its people a seat at the table &#8211;allowing electric utilities and mobile phone companies to help set the agenda. [Don's comment, see: http://www.emfacts.com/papers/who_conflict.pdf ] Now, Christopher Wild, the head of the International Agency [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.emfacts.com/2011/03/1366-iarc-welcomes-industry-to-rf-%c2%adcancer-review/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Many Scientists Admit to Misconduct</title>
		<link>http://www.emfacts.com/2005/06/many-scientists-admit-to-misconduct/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=many-scientists-admit-to-misconduct</link>
		<comments>http://www.emfacts.com/2005/06/many-scientists-admit-to-misconduct/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Jun 2005 22:59:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>EMFacts</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Corporate influence on Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Miscellaneous]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Peer review problems]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/?p=98</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Many Scientists Admit to Misconduct Degrees of Deception Vary in Poll; Researchers Say Findings Could Hurt the Field By Rick Weiss Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, June 9, 2005; A03 Few scientists fabricate results from scratch or flatly plagiarize the work of others, but a surprising number engage in troubling degrees of fact-bending or deceit, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.emfacts.com/2005/06/many-scientists-admit-to-misconduct/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Some Medical Journals More Critical of Studies Omitting Findings, Details</title>
		<link>http://www.emfacts.com/2005/05/46/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=46</link>
		<comments>http://www.emfacts.com/2005/05/46/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 May 2005 09:05:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>EMFacts</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Peer review problems]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/?p=46</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[From the Henry Kaiser Foundation Health report on Prescription Drugs http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=29952 Tuesday, May 10, 2005 Some top medical journals have begun &#8220;cracking down&#8221; on prescription drug studies that &#8220;omit key findings&#8221; on safety and efficacy or &#8220;inconvenient details about how a trial&#8217;s design changed partway through&#8221; in an &#8220;era when articles are increasingly used as [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.emfacts.com/2005/05/46/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

