I uploaded an archive( pdf of emails plus text log files) of all the
conversations that took place around Eleanor Dodsons Original thread on
08/17/07  discussing the 2HR0  structure along with the attached log files
to an archive available at

http://harijaycrystdata.s3.amazonaws.com/ccp4bb_archive_thread_withlogfiles_08_17_07_2HR0.zip

I tried to get the threads with attached logs to a single link using other
email thread viewers , but in the end put it into the above file using gmail
.
Since I missed most of the original discussion, re-reading it was very
enlightening.

Hope this helps

Hari Jayaram


On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 4:19 AM, Tommi Kajander
<[email protected]>wrote:

> Would the exact analysis of how each of these things were wrong and
> fabricated be somewhere
> available???? Would be fair (apart from the known case of C3b) to have the
> whole analysis available
> instead of just this kind of news feed. I suspect its not obvious by five
> minute check in all cases.
>
> Perhaps there needs to be ways within PDB in form of automated tools that
> would raise those red
> flags in suspicious cases (e.g. some data analysis --such as the
> contribution by solvent etc now that data beyond 8Å
> is by default used in refinement) - as it appears peer review/editing by
> journals isn't/cant always be(?) stringent enough.
>
> In any case, some type of  automated analysis of the whole data base might
> be a good idea, as there can be
> other cases (with another couple of thousand papers citing them..).
>
> tommi
>
> On Dec 10, 2009, at 4:16 PM, Ibrahim Moustafa wrote:
>
>  "After a thorough examination of the available data, which included a
>> re-analysis of each structure alleged to have been fabricated, the
>> committee
>> found a preponderance of evidence that structures 1BEF, 1CMW, 1DF9/2QID,
>> 1G40, 1G44, 1L6L, 2OU1, 1RID, 1Y8E, 2A01, and 2HR0 were more likely than
>> not
>> falsified and/or fabricated and recommended that they be removed from the
>> public record," the university said in its statement this week."
>>
>

Reply via email to