*** For details on how to be removed from this list visit the *** *** CCP4 home page http://www.ccp4.ac.uk ***
Boaz Shaanan wrote: > > My impression is that it's the case of "hot" structures NOT being checked > carefully. My point was that if it is a very interesting molecule (like this, or Ras), it is much more likely that more than one structure will be solved independently, which is what I meant by being double-checked. > There is of course a case > for difficult, most interesting and "hot" structures, to be published in > prestigious journals but they should be checked very carefully, sometimes > with other (additional) measures than the standard ones. It's for the hot > journals to work harder on refereeing those articles. One of the structures was published in JMB. If publishing in a more sober journal is correlated with better quality control, why wasn't the error caught by the JMB referees and editors? The quality control measures I think should be the same regardless of the journal. Presumably < |F+| > should be greater than < |F-| >, so if there is an accepted absolute standard template for what statistics to report on a dataset in "Table I", it might make the referees' job more tractable.
