Zbyszek, Since you mention I/sigmaI in your PDF, do you mean <I/sigmaI> or <I>/<sigmaI>? Do you mean I/sigmaI (in whatever rendition you choose) for the averaged unique reflections or the I/sigmaI for the observations? Also since one can adjust sigmaI in your scalepack program through the use of the Error Scale Factor or the Error Model, how can a reviewer believe any of the I/sigmaI that are reported by authors?
Thanks for any insights into these questions, Jim -----Original Message----- From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Zbyszek Otwinowski Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 7:41 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Rules of thumb (was diverging Rcryst and Rfree) Feel free to use it as you wish. ------ DUFF, Anthony wrote: > I reckon you could share hypothetical review comments for educational > purposes. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: CCP4 bulletin board on behalf of Bernhard Rupp (Hofkristallrat > a.D.) > Sent: Thu 10/28/2010 12:22 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Rules of thumb (was diverging Rcryst and Rfree) > > Why not double open review? If I have something reasonable to say, I > should be able to sign it. Particularly if the publicly purported > point of review is to make the manuscript better. And imagine what > wonderful open hostility we would enjoy instead of all these hidden > grudges! You would never have to preemptively condemn a paper on > grounds of suspicion that it is from someone who might have reviewed > you equally loathful earlier. You actually know that you are creaming the right bastard! > > A more serious question for the editors amongst us: Can I publish > review comments or are they covered under some confidentiality rule? > Some of these gems are quite worthy public entertainment. > > Best, BR > -- Zbyszek Otwinowski UT Southwestern Medical Center 5323 Harry Hines Blvd., Dallas, TX 75390-8816 (214) 645 6385 (phone) (214) 645 6353 (fax) [email protected]
