<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://www.nodalpoint.org" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title>nodalpoint.org - PDFs from biomedical publishers - Comments</title>
 <link>http://www.nodalpoint.org/2006/02/07/pdfs_from_biomedical_publishers</link>
 <description>Comments for &quot;PDFs from biomedical publishers&quot;</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>PDFs from biomedical publishers</title>
 <link>http://www.nodalpoint.org/2006/02/07/pdfs_from_biomedical_publishers</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;I remember people complaining on Nodalpoint before about the weakness of PDFs supplied by publishers for biomedical papers: file naming, lack of metadata, inability to automate downloads etc. I wrote up &lt;a href=&quot;http://hublog.hubmed.org/archives/001306.html&quot;&gt;a quick survey/rant&lt;/a&gt; yesterday to see exactly what the state of these files is at the moment, hopefully with some pointers to how things can be improved.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;br class=&quot;clear&quot; /&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.nodalpoint.org/2006/02/07/pdfs_from_biomedical_publishers#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.nodalpoint.org/forums/announcements/publications_0">Publications</category>
 <pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2006 11:19:56 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>alf</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">1786 at http://www.nodalpoint.org</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
