<?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>ForTheScience.org &#187; Dissemination</title>
	<atom:link href="http://forthescience.org/blog/category/topics/dissemination/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://forthescience.org/blog</link>
	<description>A blog about science and programming</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 05 Feb 2012 01:02:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Bad science, good science &#8211; Part 3: Developing a critical eye</title>
		<link>http://forthescience.org/blog/2011/06/30/bad-science-good-science-part-3-developing-a-critical-eye/</link>
		<comments>http://forthescience.org/blog/2011/06/30/bad-science-good-science-part-3-developing-a-critical-eye/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2011 20:03:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Stefano Borini</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Dissemination]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://forthescience.org/blog/?p=1401</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In this final post, I want to give some form of grocery list to get an idea of the reliability of scientific communication performed by general purpose media. To do this, I necessarily had to introduce some nomenclature in the previous posts, in particular about citations, type of article, structure of an article, Impact Factors, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://forthescience.org/blog/2011/06/30/bad-science-good-science-part-3-developing-a-critical-eye/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bad science, good science &#8211; Part 2: Reputation, quality and meaning</title>
		<link>http://forthescience.org/blog/2011/05/30/bad-science-good-science-part-2-reputation-quality-and-meaning/</link>
		<comments>http://forthescience.org/blog/2011/05/30/bad-science-good-science-part-2-reputation-quality-and-meaning/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 May 2011 21:03:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Stefano Borini</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Dissemination]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://forthescience.org/blog/?p=1563</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This article continues my series of three articles on how to defend yourself from bad scientific communication perpetrated by non-scientific newspapers. The first post detailed the scientific article and the mechanism of citations. In this post I will proceed detailing the peer reviewing process, and two numbers, the Impact Factor and the h-Index, to obtain [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://forthescience.org/blog/2011/05/30/bad-science-good-science-part-2-reputation-quality-and-meaning/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bad science, good science &#8211; Part 1: The scientific article</title>
		<link>http://forthescience.org/blog/2011/04/30/bad-science-good-science-part-1-the-scientific-article/</link>
		<comments>http://forthescience.org/blog/2011/04/30/bad-science-good-science-part-1-the-scientific-article/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 Apr 2011 10:00:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Stefano Borini</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Dissemination]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://forthescience.org/blog/?p=1527</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I see a lot of news announcements with new and extraordinary claims about scientific discoveries, mainly from daily newspapers or websites shown by news feeds. I think it&#8217;s time for me to present my point of view about how damaging this process is to correct scientific perception to the public. In addition, I will try [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://forthescience.org/blog/2011/04/30/bad-science-good-science-part-1-the-scientific-article/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Academia StackExchange reaches Commitment level</title>
		<link>http://forthescience.org/blog/2011/03/09/academia-stackexchange-reaches-commitment-level/</link>
		<comments>http://forthescience.org/blog/2011/03/09/academia-stackexchange-reaches-commitment-level/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Mar 2011 00:41:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Stefano Borini</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Dissemination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Websites]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stackexchange]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://forthescience.org/blog/?p=1535</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Some time ago, I proposed the foundation of a Question and Answer site for Academia. Now, the Academia StackExchange has reached commitment phase, meaning that the proposal aggregated a consistent number of people who may have an interest in it, and further aggregation of active participant is sought after. You may report your interest in [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://forthescience.org/blog/2011/03/09/academia-stackexchange-reaches-commitment-level/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Tulips!</title>
		<link>http://forthescience.org/blog/2011/02/07/tulips/</link>
		<comments>http://forthescience.org/blog/2011/02/07/tulips/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Feb 2011 14:03:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Stefano Borini</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Charity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dissemination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gardening]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://forthescience.org/blog/?p=1423</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As you probably recall, some time ago I proposed to associate scientific dissemination and research to a symbol. I chose this symbol to be the tulip, and I planted some bulbs. As winter will turn into spring soon, they start peeking out of the cold soil Satisfying! This year, I decided to donate my royalties [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://forthescience.org/blog/2011/02/07/tulips/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Arsenic bacterium. A case of bad scientific communication?</title>
		<link>http://forthescience.org/blog/2010/12/04/the-arsenic-bacterium-a-case-of-bad-scientific-communication/</link>
		<comments>http://forthescience.org/blog/2010/12/04/the-arsenic-bacterium-a-case-of-bad-scientific-communication/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Dec 2010 00:54:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Stefano Borini</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Astrobiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Authoring]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Biology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dissemination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arsenic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bacterium]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nasa]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://forthescience.org/blog/?p=1372</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As you probably heard in the news, two days ago everyone was ablaze for a mysterious announcement from NASA. Speculation started on how the new discovery would &#8220;impact the search for evidence of extraterrestrial life.&#8221; Someone found a habitable planet? Found a message with Seti@HOME? Discovered the primordial soup composition? The buzz resonated and amplified at [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://forthescience.org/blog/2010/12/04/the-arsenic-bacterium-a-case-of-bad-scientific-communication/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The challenges of scientific communication</title>
		<link>http://forthescience.org/blog/2010/09/13/the-challenges-of-scientific-communication/</link>
		<comments>http://forthescience.org/blog/2010/09/13/the-challenges-of-scientific-communication/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Sep 2010 21:25:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Stefano Borini</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Dissemination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://forthescience.org/blog/?p=1080</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I read with strong interest this post &#8220;How Hard Science Saves Lives&#8221; from Bente Lilja Bye at Science 2.0. I will make a very short summary for presentation purposes, but I encourage to read through her very interesting post. The point being made, shortly stated, is the argument between hard-science and soft-science representatives on saving [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://forthescience.org/blog/2010/09/13/the-challenges-of-scientific-communication/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Question/Answers site for Popular Science</title>
		<link>http://forthescience.org/blog/2010/06/24/a-questionanswers-site-for-popular-science/</link>
		<comments>http://forthescience.org/blog/2010/06/24/a-questionanswers-site-for-popular-science/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:47:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Stefano Borini</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Astronomy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Biology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chemistry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dissemination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Websites]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://forthescience.org/blog/?p=743</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The kind folks behind StackOverflow, a free Question/Answers website for programming questions, recently decided to open new Q/A websites for many additional interesting topics, from wine tasting and cooking to mathematics. The fundamental requisite for such new sites to be opened is a rather strict community review and development of a critical mass of contributors [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://forthescience.org/blog/2010/06/24/a-questionanswers-site-for-popular-science/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The future of entertainment is here</title>
		<link>http://forthescience.org/blog/2010/06/07/the-future-of-entertainment-is-here/</link>
		<comments>http://forthescience.org/blog/2010/06/07/the-future-of-entertainment-is-here/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jun 2010 14:50:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Stefano Borini</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Digital Rights Management]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dissemination]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://forthescience.org/blog/?p=493</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Please take a look at this This technology is probably the future of entertainment. It needs no batteries, has a nice resolution both for pictures and text, it can be easily bookmarked or annotated (although sometimes there&#8217;s not enough space). It can be bought both online and in a shop, brand new or used. It [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://forthescience.org/blog/2010/06/07/the-future-of-entertainment-is-here/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

