[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ccp4bb]: re: Problems with PDB entry 1muo; flame war II
*** For details on how to be removed from this list visit the ***
*** CCP4 home page http://www.ccp4.ac.uk ***
At 11:18 25.04.2003 -0400, Leif Hanson wrote:
>Sending coordinates to reviewer is
>too tempting, especially for the ambitious and driven. The only way a
>should view coordinates is if they first identify themselves.
Umm, coordinates are results, right? Doesn't reviewer
want to see results to evaluate the work? How is that
different from any other results? A paper on enzyme
kinetics will never get reviewed, much less accepted
to publication, without graphs showing experimental
data. Nor a paper on protein purification to near
homogeneity will do without a picture of the gel.
With regard to theft possibility: Once again, look
at other fields. Stealing things in xtallography is
manyfold more difficult! It's not like reviewer
can take coordinates and fake reflection file. No,
at the minimum, they will need through a troubles of
getting protein ctrystals and collecting data, which
is a lot more work than, for example, buy an antibody
and do an immunoprecipitation followed Western blot
(a typical paper on protein-protein in signalling).
Yet none of this prevent sumission of data in other
fileds (no less competitive) where results and
dicoveries can be stolen much more easiely.
Submission of structure factors to reviewers is
tricker, I think. Chances are high that a lot of things
will start getting rejected by unfriendly (or just
irrationally angry or envious) reviewers picking on
minor things that have absolutely nothing to do with
the structure in question and its biological
relevance (_that_ is easier to do in crystallography,
because no model is perfect and all crystals are not
the same!). But structure factors absolutely need to be
submitted to the databank upon publication since they
can be of value to other researchers.
Just my $0.02