ABOUT
Smart discussion of the latest science and news on toxins in your food, water, and air, and what government agencies should be doing to protect public health. Written by EWG staff.
DONATE TO EWG!
Help us protect your health and environment! Please donate $5 to EWG today.
GET EWG'S TIPS & ACTION ALERTS
Sign Up here to receive email updates and tips from EWG and stay informed on the issues that matter most to you.

ENVIROBLOG VIA EMAIL
Join EWG's live chat with Chef Ann Cooper
School lunch: More fruits & veggies, please!
Texas Schools are Drilling for Dollars
Why do blowouts take so long to fix?
SEARCH ENVIROBLOG
FEATURED
Support the 2010 Safe Cosmetics Act. It's Urgent.
Why, oh why is there plastic in my aluminum water bottle?
Cell phone radiation series - Part 2: 8 Ways to reduce your exposure
Test Your Knowledge of Cosmetics Safety: 8 Myths Debunked
EWG's Tips for Parents: The Series
EWG's Tips to avoid BPA exposure
EWG on TV
Cutting the Pork from U.S. Farm Bill
Sunscreen safety & DC drinking water
Perchlorate in people, kids' personal care products & plastics, and sunscreen
BPA in baby formula & safe cosmetics
What can I do about fluoride in my water?
What is new carpet treated with? What can I do?
Are stainless steel water bottles safe?
Is mineral-based makeup safer?

PEOPLE TALKING TOXICS
TALK TO US
Did we miss something? Email Enviroblog.
« McDonald's ad chief resigning in McHummer shame? | Main | Alums have a bone to pick with Harvard »
Respected journal brings public to peer-review process
The scientific journal Nature has added a new element to its system of reviewing articles for publication---posting submissions online and allowing feedback from recognized scientists and institutions. The posting of pending research is meant to support, not replace, the traditional peer-review process, which has come under increased scrutiny as of late for failing to weed out shoddy or even fraudulent research. Nature’s editors hope that poorly drawn conclusions and flaws in experimental design, will be more easily flagged with more eyes reviewing them.
The move is a nod to the growing accountability of scientists, public officials, and legislators, to the online community and to the increasing popularity and usefulness of user-generated content. This could become a useful tool for exposing conflicts of interest which have become a hotly contested topic as of late.
[Link: Wall Street Journal (subscription only)]
Leave a comment