*** For details on how to be removed from this list visit the ***
*** CCP4 home page http://www.ccp4.ac.uk ***
I agree that more information to referees is desirable, & I've often
wanted to see the coordinates and the structure factors to check
things. But to follow up after publication, there are still a lot of
structures deposited without structure factors - why is deposition of
structure factors not compulsory? And who can change things so that
it becomes compulsory?
Phil Evans
On 14 Dec 2006, at 16:38, William Scott wrote:
*** For details on how to be removed from this list visit the ***
*** CCP4 home page http://www.ccp4.ac.uk ***
Hi folks:
Bernhard has an interesting letter in the correspondence section of
Nature today (I have to confess I was looking for the mezasoic
flying mammal when I found this).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7121/full/444817b.html
I think this is a good idea, but I wonder if it might be worth
tanking one step further. The last three structure papers that I
wrote were submitted along with the experimental map as a pymol
saved session so that the referees could take a look at the map we
actually used to build the molecule, as well as a composite-omit
map generated using the final refined structure. I have no idea
whether this was in fact used, but I thought it might be helpful.
Seeing the actual maps always makes the statistics more concrete,
for me at least.
Bill
