<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.3" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Barriers to good statistical software</title>
	<link>http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2008/05/16/barriers-to-good-statistical-software/</link>
	<description>The blog of John D. Cook</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2008 18:28:39 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Rory</title>
		<link>http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2008/05/16/barriers-to-good-statistical-software/#comment-618</link>
		<dc:creator>Rory</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 May 2008 17:07:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2008/05/16/barriers-to-good-statistical-software/#comment-618</guid>
		<description>It seems crazy that academics who publish these kind of papers are not required to make available their data and methods, unless there are commercial considerations involved. Surely this subtly undermines the whole idea of academic integrity? It seems unclear what role academic referees have to play - are they just a formal rubber stamp? It seems little wonder that such a huge percentage of academic output is destined for obscurity the instant it is published.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It seems crazy that academics who publish these kind of papers are not required to make available their data and methods, unless there are commercial considerations involved. Surely this subtly undermines the whole idea of academic integrity? It seems unclear what role academic referees have to play - are they just a formal rubber stamp? It seems little wonder that such a huge percentage of academic output is destined for obscurity the instant it is published.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
