Hi Jacob,
There is (very) BIG difference between depositing images for deposited
structures and depositing all images ever recorded by any crystallographer on
the planet. In the case you presented, A and B can settle the issue by looking
at each other's images whether through the database or by exchanging data on
their own initiative or even by writing a note to a journal that they
completely disagree with one another and start a debate (in case one of them is
not willing to exchange images). Besides, I thought that by now there are some
standards on how data should be processed (this has been discussed on this BB
once every few months, if I'm not mistaken). Isn't that part of the validation
process that so many good people have established? Also, to the best of my
knowledge (and experience) referees (at least of some journals) are instructed
to look into those issues these days and comment about them, aren't they?
Cheers,
Boaz
Boaz Shaanan, Ph.D.
Dept. of Life Sciences
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
Beer-Sheva 84105
Israel
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: 972-8-647-2220 Skype: boaz.shaanan
Fax: 972-8-647-2992 or 972-8-646-1710
________________________________________
From: CCP4 bulletin board [[email protected]] on behalf of Jacob Keller
[[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 5:05 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] raw data deposition
What about a case in which two investigators have differences about
what cutoff to apply to the data, for example, A thinks that Rsym of
50 should be used regardless of I/sig, and B thinks that I/sig of 2
and Rpim should be used. Usually A would cut off the data at a lower
resolution than B, especially with high multiplicity, so B would love
to have the images to see what extra info could be gleaned from a
higher-res cutoff. Or the converse, A is skeptical of B's cutoff, and
wants to see whether the data according to A's cutoff justify B's
conclusion. Don't these types of things happen a lot, and wouldn't
images be helpful for this?
JPK
