<?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/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: A report from Science Foo camp</title>
	<atom:link href="http://sciencecommons.org/weblog/archives/2007/08/09/a-report-from-science-foo-camp/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://sciencecommons.org/weblog/archives/2007/08/09/a-report-from-science-foo-camp/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Jun 2010 09:41:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marcus Banks</title>
		<link>http://sciencecommons.org/weblog/archives/2007/08/09/a-report-from-science-foo-camp/comment-page-1/#comment-21735</link>
		<dc:creator>Marcus Banks</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Aug 2007 17:12:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sciencecommons.org/weblog/archives/2007/08/09/a-report-from-science-foo-camp/#comment-21735</guid>
		<description>Thanks for this very informative post.

I&#039;m a librarian, and think these are very exciting times for challenging the prevailing publishing paradigms discussed at the &quot;Open Science 2.0&quot; panel. Perhaps libraries could publish and preserve academic work in-house, without buying it from third-parties that have vested interests in the current system.

Publishing, especially peer-reviewed publishing of complicated material, is very difficult to do well. So this would not be a trivial transformation. Nevertheless it is worth considering seriously.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for this very informative post.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m a librarian, and think these are very exciting times for challenging the prevailing publishing paradigms discussed at the &#8220;Open Science 2.0&#8243; panel. Perhaps libraries could publish and preserve academic work in-house, without buying it from third-parties that have vested interests in the current system.</p>
<p>Publishing, especially peer-reviewed publishing of complicated material, is very difficult to do well. So this would not be a trivial transformation. Nevertheless it is worth considering seriously.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

