*** For details on how to be removed from this list visit the ***
*** CCP4 home page http://www.ccp4.ac.uk ***
I would guess that there is a consensus (possibly with a very few
dissenters) that it should be part of the deposition, but that nobody
knows how to change the current rules.
1) publishers don't care but will respond to the community
2) grant-awarding bodies don't know so won't apply any pressure
3) IUCR might be able to do something, but it may be that the
initiative should come from wwPDB, I don't know
I do know that it has been discussed at many meetings but nobody
seemed to know how to change things
I suspect the main reason for not depositing structures factors is
laziness. But there is always a little suspicion that there is
something to hide ...
Phil
On 15 Dec 2006, at 11:28, Peter Keller wrote:
Hi Phil,
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Phil Evans wrote:
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?
I don't work at the EBI any longer, so I can't speak for the wwPDB
or the MSD group, but in my understanding the answer to your second
question is that one or more of the following three interest groups
would have to agree to change things to make structure factor
deposition universal:
(1) Publishers: currently deposition of coordinates is required
to get an ID code for publication. The journals could insist that
PDB id codes quoted in the articles that they publish had to have
both coordinates and structure factors deposited.
(2) Grant-awarding bodies could insist that any structures
determined/deposited on their funding had to be deposited with
structure factors.
(3) The "crystallographic community" (via the IUCR?) could agree
that structure factors should always be deposited, and ask the
wwPDB not to issue ID codes without them. This has been much
debated in the past. I don't know whether any consensus is emerging.
This is not a decision that can be made unilaterally by the wwPDB
of course. There is also the issue of who would check that the
policy is being followed. In scenario (3) it would be the wwPDB
themselves, but in the other two it is not quite so clear cut.
As for your first question, it would be interesting to hear some
current views from people who don't deposit structure factors, and
why they think that putting structure factors on hold (i.e.
delaying their release after deposition) does not address their
concerns.
Regards,
Peter.
