The sad situation is that more and more scientists are becoming
desperate (for funding or tenure or both) and are told 'publish or
perish'; they become obsessed with impact factors, sensationalise the
data in the process (be it complete fabrication or 'massaging' the
results) and rush to publish to be the 'first' to do so.
This was recently highlighted in the following article:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v483/n7391/full/483531a.html
I personally think that whole review process should be open and
transparent where the coordinates are available for everyone to see
(after deposition and with authors' consent) along with the names and
comments of the reviewers. If sloppy mistakes are made (deliberately or
otherwise), they will be picked up by the wider scientific community if
not the reviewers.
Regards
Ravi
On 02/04/2012 19:00, Maria Sola i Vilarrubias wrote:
Dear Phoebe,
I cannot imagine myself delivering maps and coordinates (after years
of work... I insist: after years of work) to a reviewer that could
be, for whatever chance, my best competitor (even if I suggested to
the editor not to include him/her as a reviewer... but decisions from
editors are of all kind).
I simply prefer not imagine this after two publications fuelled by
clear, direct and strong competition. That was stressful enough,
already. If I have to add to this stress the thought that my
coordinates can go to the "wrong" hands, then I think I would just
give up or, alternatively, send the work to a lower impact,
fast-publishing journal and make my life easier while sending my
scientific future to the low-impact bin, killing future opportunities.
Competition is there. I see that data to be deposited is strictly
confidential. I support the PDB to make the quality check work at the
level you mention, but not a reviewer: People are nice but the world
is big and competition is crazy... at least enough to make fraud or
copy other's work. The latter is less difficult; by copying ("simply
copy and paste to my computer this nice structure that I was looking
for!"), there is no need to invent anything.
About a wrongly fit compound, the reviewer can ask images about the
model in a map calculated at a specific sigma and in different
orientations.
Maria
On 2 April 2012 18:43, Phoebe Rice <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Can we leverage this to push journals to routinely allow reviewers
access coordinates and maps?
Outright fraud is outrageous, but I'm actually more worried about
ligands fit to marginal density and other issues of
under-supervised model building.
=====================================
Phoebe A. Rice
Dept. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology
The University of Chicago
phone 773 834 1723 <tel:773%20834%201723>
http://bmb.bsd.uchicago.edu/Faculty_and_Research/01_Faculty/01_Faculty_Alphabetically.php?faculty_id=123
http://www.rsc.org/shop/books/2008/9780854042722.asp
---- Original message ----
>Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 08:41:02 -0700
>From: CCP4 bulletin board <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> (on behalf of "Bernhard Rupp
(Hofkristallrat a.D.)" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>)
>Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] very informative - Trends in Data Fabrication
>To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>
> Robbie has restored the PDB_REDO of 3k78
>
>
>
> It is at www.cmbi.ru.nl/pdb_redo/others/3k78.tar.bz2
<http://www.cmbi.ru.nl/pdb_redo/others/3k78.tar.bz2>
>
>
>
> and Louise Jones form the IUCr office has kindly
> made the article open access.
>
>
>
> http://journals.iucr.org/f/issues/2012/04/00/issconts.html
>
>
>
> BR
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: CCP4 bulletin board
> [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>]
On Behalf Of Bernhard
> Rupp (Hofkristallrat a.D.)
> Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 06:06
> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] very informative - Trends in
> Data Fabrication
>
>
>
> >Hofkristallrat auA*er Dienst, is written as
> Bernhard - unless you are referring to some other
> guy with a french name Bernard.
>
>
>
> As one may extrapolate given my recent paper, I have
> been called names a lot worse....
>
>
>
> A* And the book indeed is a bible of xtallography.
>
>
>
> Enough of this - it is becoming embarrassing. I wish
> I had done a more careful job proofing, as over 500
> errata attest to,
>
> and we all are only seeing further because we are
> standing on the shoulders of giants. So once again
> thanks
>
> to all the contributors I have pestered with my
> questions on BB and then some, and to all those who
> actually read BMC and
>
> submitted errata.
>
>
>
> Best regards, BR
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Bernhard Hieronimus Rupp, Hofkristallrat a.D.
> 001 (925) 209-7429 <tel:%28925%29%20209-7429>
> +43 (676) 571-0536 <tel:%2B43%20%28676%29%20571-0536>
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> http://www.ruppweb.org/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Once the sun of science is standing low, even dwarfs
> cast tall shadows
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
--
Maria Solà
Dep. Structural Biology
IBMB-CSIC
Baldiri Reixach 10-12
08028 BARCELONA
Spain
Tel: (+34) 93 403 4950
Fax: (+34) 93 403 4979
e-mail: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
--
Dr. Ravi Nookala
Dept. of Biochemistry
University of Cambridge
+44 (0)1223 766033 (Office)
+44 (0)7505808969 (Mobile)
http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/ravi-nookala/5/a87/b04
