Re: [ccp4bb]: Re: structure factors/quality control

[William Scott <wgscott@chemistry.ucsc.edu>]

***  For details on how to be removed from this list visit the  ***
***          CCP4 home page http://www.ccp4.ac.uk         ***

>
> Peer review, as frustrating as it can be, has
> proven to be the only viable quality-control
> tool in science.

I agree that other crystallographers are probably in the best position 
to judge, but at least one among us who prefers not to have his or her 
identity publicized just voiced to me the objection, when I made a 
similar proposal, that some referees in the past have used anonymous 
peer review as an opportunity to obtain a competitor's results prior to 
publication.

>
> And by peer review I do not
> mean a mob of crystallography vigilantes perusing
> the PDB to revel in their competitors (maybe honest)
> mistakes.

Perhaps the best way to prevent this is a trade-off:  I'll submit all 
of my data along with my paper for peer review if the reviewers sign 
their names to their reviews.


>  I get the impression that many students
>   do not understand the basic principles
>   of refinement or handle details of refinement
>   and structure validation
>   with a certain degree of laissez-faire.
>   Worse, apparently many people have
>   nobody in their own lab who can or is willing
>   to answer their questions on such very basic
>   issues.
>
That's a great way to keep people from asking important but seemingly 
basic questions  -- imply they already should know the answer if they 
are in a reputable research group.

I often see several different answers posted in response to a "basic" 
question.  Many seemingly simple issues are in fact deceptively complex 
and deserved to be discussed without inhibition or judgment.   For 
example, should NCS always be applied as a constraint (rather than a 
weighted restraint where the weight is adjusted as a function of Rfree)?