<?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:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Can you tweet from Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory meetings?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://embargowatch.wordpress.com/2010/05/24/can-you-tweet-from-cold-spring-harbor-laboratory-meetings/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://embargowatch.wordpress.com/2010/05/24/can-you-tweet-from-cold-spring-harbor-laboratory-meetings/</link>
	<description>Keeping an eye on how scientific information embargoes affect news coverage</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Apr 2013 21:32:59 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: sally</title>
		<link>http://embargowatch.wordpress.com/2010/05/24/can-you-tweet-from-cold-spring-harbor-laboratory-meetings/#comment-484</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[sally]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 May 2010 19:27:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://embargowatch.wordpress.com/?p=1214#comment-484</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Agree totally with Nancy.  Oddly, I was just writing a similar comment in another forum about the same topic.

Generally, if tweeting or blogging about meetings I use common sense and don&#039;t mention unpublished data, but it has occurred to me that it does create a conundrum that many scientists fail to see.  Essentially they have revealed the results themselves and potentially broken a publication&#039;s embargo.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Agree totally with Nancy.  Oddly, I was just writing a similar comment in another forum about the same topic.</p>
<p>Generally, if tweeting or blogging about meetings I use common sense and don&#8217;t mention unpublished data, but it has occurred to me that it does create a conundrum that many scientists fail to see.  Essentially they have revealed the results themselves and potentially broken a publication&#8217;s embargo.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nancy Lapid</title>
		<link>http://embargowatch.wordpress.com/2010/05/24/can-you-tweet-from-cold-spring-harbor-laboratory-meetings/#comment-482</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Nancy Lapid]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 May 2010 13:15:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://embargowatch.wordpress.com/?p=1214#comment-482</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In my many years of editing research papers and helping researchers write their talks, we always kept unpublished data out of the talks. If the researchers have submitted their data for publication, and then they present it in a talk, or discuss it in a semi-public forum, then the &quot;secret&quot; is out, and it&#039;s not the audience&#039;s fault.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In my many years of editing research papers and helping researchers write their talks, we always kept unpublished data out of the talks. If the researchers have submitted their data for publication, and then they present it in a talk, or discuss it in a semi-public forum, then the &#8220;secret&#8221; is out, and it&#8217;s not the audience&#8217;s fault.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
