If journals would require that not only coordinates, but also structure factors
would be made publicly available immediately AFTER publication, any "sloppy"
author will be caught within days by the Rups, redo people and Bricognes.
Anyone who would then still submit and publish questionable data has choosen
the wrong metier and, as has been mentioned before, should probably look for a
job in the financial sector.
my 2 cents,
Herman
________________________________
From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of
Ravi Nookala
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 9:31 AM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] very informative - Trends in Data Fabrication
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 <pr...@uchicago.edu> 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 <CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK> (on
behalf of "Bernhard Rupp (Hofkristallrat a.D.)" <hofkristall...@gmail.com>)
>Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] very informative - Trends in
Data Fabrication
>To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
>
> Robbie has restored the PDB_REDO of 3k78
>
>
>
> It is at 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:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Bernhard
> Rupp (Hofkristallrat a.D.)
> Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 06:06
> To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> 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>
> hofkristall...@gmail.com
> b...@hofkristallamt.org
> 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: maria.s...@ibmb.csic.es
--
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
