<?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:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" 
	xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.digitaltrends.com/xml/digitaltrends.xsd"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Britannica Comes Out Swinging at Nature</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.digitaltrends.com/lifestyle/britannica-comes-out-swinging-at-nature/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.digitaltrends.com/lifestyle/britannica-comes-out-swinging-at-nature/</link>
	<description>Digital Trends is your home for technology news, CE product reviews, mobile app reviews and daily videos.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2012 21:21:20 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Wholesomedick</title>
		<link>http://www.digitaltrends.com/lifestyle/britannica-comes-out-swinging-at-nature/#comment-52671</link>
		<dc:creator>Wholesomedick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Mar 2006 05:03:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.digitaltrends.com#comment-52671</guid>
		<description>Somebody call the WAAABULANCE. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This isn&#039;t going to make me stop using Wikipedia.  Britannica would have better spent their time fixing their errors.  Do they not have an edit feature?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Somebody call the WAAABULANCE. </p>
<p>This isn&#039;t going to make me stop using Wikipedia.  Britannica would have better spent their time fixing their errors.  Do they not have an edit feature?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul M</title>
		<link>http://www.digitaltrends.com/lifestyle/britannica-comes-out-swinging-at-nature/#comment-52669</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul M</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Mar 2006 01:33:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.digitaltrends.com#comment-52669</guid>
		<description>This is a great story. Having read both Britannica and Nature&#039;s explanations, Nature still has a lot more explaining to do. It won&#039;t publish the extracts it sent to its referees. For a scientific journal this is plain weird.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Britannica says that Nature sent the referees extracts that weren&#039;t from the Encyclopedia Britannica, but from the yearbook (!?) and in one case fabricated an entry.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If this is true, it&#039;s dynamite. Looks like Nature blew it big time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is a great story. Having read both Britannica and Nature&#039;s explanations, Nature still has a lot more explaining to do. It won&#039;t publish the extracts it sent to its referees. For a scientific journal this is plain weird.</p>
<p>Britannica says that Nature sent the referees extracts that weren&#039;t from the Encyclopedia Britannica, but from the yearbook (!?) and in one case fabricated an entry.</p>
<p>If this is true, it&#039;s dynamite. Looks like Nature blew it big time.</p>
<p></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Content Delivery Network via cdn.digitaltrends.com

Served from: www.digitaltrends.com @ 2012-02-16 13:24:55 -->
