Even if you remove the authors it is often easy to ascertain who they are by
reading the paper and reference list.
Marco Lolicato chimbio...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi scientists,
this interesting topic brought back to my mind a similar discussion I had with
a colleague of mine and now I want to
Many (more) reviewers - [panic on Roberto's face]
Isn't real peer-review just a question of standing the test of time?
A piece of work blatantly wrong will sooner or later be picked up by someone
(although I acknowledge that wrong papers can have serious consequences on
one's ability to
And just to add a little further to Mark's point, is there anyone here who
has at some stage received reviewer comments and NOT immediately spent the
next little while trying to deduce who each of the reviewers were?
(especially if they were negative...)
I would imagine most people have a pretty
Ciao Roberto,
I'm sure the current research system works better in some fields than in
others. It depends on a number of factors, perhaps the more important of
them the amount of publications produced. Or it may be as we say in
Spain: everybody talks about the party according to how much fun is
…then the issue is to reduce the number of papers people publish: this is the
central problem in the system: nobody reads them, nobody cites them, etc etc.
There are papers out there - quite a number - that have no cites, meaning that
even the authors weren't interested in them. A long time
Also good to remember the contributions of Peter Kollman who also died too
young and would certainly have been a contender in this splendidly well
directed Nobel prize
Laurence H. Pearl PhD FRS FMedSci
Professor
Dear All,
Initially I planned to wash Inclusion bodies using
1% (w/v) sodium salt of deoxycholic acid (Na-Deoxycholate).
In our lab, we have Deoxycholic acid (Not Na-salt).
Any inputs how to get it solubilized to reach 1% (w/v)?
Thanks
Kris
This is amazing - I am so glad the Nobel committee has recognised this
ground breaking, rather unglamorous work requiring great intelligence,
very hard work, and a lot of disappointments!
Congratulations to them all, and to the whole field.
Eleanor Dodson
On 10 October 2013 09:26, Alexandre
Hi Folmer,
I was hoping to see what kind of science was behind the computer program that
generated the unique papers.
Combinatorics in this case. The article was pre-written, he just replaced some
names.
Typically for hard science texts you would use a formal grammar with random
production
To bolster Adrian's argument about people not reading papers:
I periodically identify PDB entries that have not been released
becuase they are on hold until publication. But the paper was
publshed months earlier. This means that nobody has read the
paper, then tried to look at the coordinates,
I could not resist but comment at the end ... (sorry for cleaning up the thread
text)
I agree with Roberto that the system is actually not that bad when you think of
it. Or, it could be much worse.
In my experience, the editors of many journals - professional or academic - try
very hard, and
My editorial suggestion:
My suspicion is that many structural papers are not read beyond the author
list and title, if at all should be corrected as follows:
My suspicion is that many papers are not read beyond the author list and title,
if at all.
Debasish
-Original Message-
From:
Another annoying syndrome is people who download your coordinates, don't read
the paper, and then assume any insights are their own brand new ideas.
A biophysicist once said to me at a meeting I hope you aren't offended that
we've found the DNA bend in your structure is flexible. The TITLE of
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Marco Lolicato chimbio...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyway, for those reasons and more, I was wondering if maybe is nowadays
needed to revisit the peer-review process.
Apologies for the lengthy response, but I really do think the current
publication system is broken,
Dear All,
I am currently setting up a system running UBUNTU-12.04.3 (64 bit version),
When I try to install CCP4 software suite by using the software suite, it
kinda gets hung with the message Now communicating with CCP4 server,
please wait.. for ever
Any help would be usefull.
Their work has inspired many of us, including my own work on crystallographic
refinement.
It is so wonderful that Michael, Arieh, and Martin have received this most
deserving recognition.
Congratulations!!!
Axel
Axel T. Brunger
Investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Professor and
This is most probably because of last-minute changes for CCP4 release, you just
got us in a *very* wrong moment, we are moving files on the server. Please come
back in 2 hours or so.
Eugene.
On 10 Oct 2013, at 17:55, Swastik Phulera wrote:
Dear All,
I am currently setting up a system
Dear Sacha, Dear Colleagues,
I also offer my congratulations to the Chemistry Nobellists of yesterday. A
very exciting and significant event, which I enjoyed. I recall when my PhD
student, Gail Bradbrook, spoke about our harnessing these exciting methods in
our crystallographic and structural
Dear CCP4 Users,
The CCP4 Core Group is very pleased to announce the release of the latest
version of the CCP4 Software Suite. Version 6.4.0 (Long Preston) is now
available from the CCP4 download website:
http://www.ccp4.ac.uk/download.phphttp://www.ccp4.ac.uk/download/
The release is
Microlytic is a leader in the development of tools for protein
crystallization. Our team brings tremendous crystallization experience to
all aspects of our company, with Ph.D. crystallographers involved in
production, development, commercialization, sales and marketing. Our
mission is to provide a
Dear Felix,
No, it does not come through updates. 6.3.0 update line will terminate tomorrow
or soon after.
This must be a fresh install.
It can co-exist with 6.3.0 on Linux platforms and Mac OSX platforms, except for
QtMG on Mac OSX, which will be superseded (but it is advisable to supersede
Dear Felix,
It is probably poor formatting in my e-mail, apologies. The download page is
http://www.ccp4.ac.uk/download/
and yes it shows 6.4.0 for me. You may be seeing cached page. If so, press down
and hold 'Shift' on your keyboard and click 'Reload' control button in your
browser (it may
Hi All,
I have a structure at 2.45A which has been well refined. However, since the
R-merge at the last shell is above 1 (although I/sigmaI at the last shell
is more than 2), we now decide to cut back the resolution to about 2.6A. Is
there a way to do this based on the well-refined model instead
Please explain how you think that cutting back the resolution will improve your
model
Phil
On 10 Oct 2013, at 21:57, Yafang Chen yafangche...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi All,
I have a structure at 2.45A which has been well refined. However, since the
R-merge at the last shell is above 1 (although
Dear Yafang,
Is it the case that you collected these data on a Pilatus detector,
using relatively low exposure and high multiplicity? These types of datasets
always give what looks like alarmingly high values of R-merge, and many
people who are set in their ways (like so many reviewers still
Please tell me why Rpim should be looked at. Cannot one have meaningless data
and have lots of multiplicity to drive Rpim lower without any real benefit?
Under what conditions is Rpim useful?
And suppose one looks at I/sigI (and not I/sigI) and CC1/2. What of it?
And let me write what Phil
Dear John,
I surely hope that the recent Nobel Prize will encourage young people
to get into into the fields of computational biology and chemistry.
Moreover, X-ray sources are undergoing new exciting developments
(e.g., XFELs) that require new computational approaches, as does
cryo-EM.
Having run foul of the R-factor police on a number of occasions, but having
ultimately prevailed, I would like to offer the following opinion:
Intensity measurements in the weak outer shells are as valid as any other and,
if they are correctly processed and properly assessed for their
Dear All,
I was wondering if anyone has a more up to date reference on the smallest
crystal (fibrils not included!) that has been used to collect a whole
dataset? Also, the smallest crystals used for a multi crystal approach? In
both cases, not including any X-FEL structures.
I'm currently
On Thursday, 10 October, 2013 22:44:34 Jim Pflugrath wrote:
Please tell me why Rpim should be looked at. Cannot one have meaningless
data and have lots of multiplicity to drive Rpim lower without any real
benefit? Under what conditions is Rpim useful?
And suppose one looks at I/sigI (and
Hi Yafang,
perhaps you should calculate the actual resolution first (as described
here: *Acta Cryst.* (2013). D*69*, 1921-1934) and then go from that?
Pavel
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Yafang Chen yafangche...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi All,
I have a structure at 2.45A which has been well
31 matches
Mail list logo
