The deposition of coordinates was adopted very quickly after grant
giving bodies began to withold funds if the coordinates from previous
grants were not deposited.
Some of the journals adopted the same policy.
I am afraid it depends on the community to do the policing - you need to
be ready to "name and shame" to relevent bodies - even public requests
to tthe BB can sometimes stimulate release!
Structure factors not being deposited is more to do with ignorance or
laziness I think - maybe the deposition centres should contact any
author who deposits coordinates and not SFs offering help?
Eleanor
Phil Evans wrote:
*** 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.
begin:vcard
fn:Eleanor Dodson
n:Dodson;Eleanor
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
tel;work:+44 (0) 1904 328259
tel;fax:+44 (0) 1904 328266
tel;home:+44 (0) 1904 424449
version:2.1
end:vcard
