Hi James, My previous message on this matter remains unnoticed, but I also suggested a very simple solution to the data fraud: the crystallographers should submit to PDB partially processed data, like unmerged partial reflections. These files are much smaller than the images, and only a few people in the world are capable to forge them. This simple solution would kill any attempt to fabricate crystallographic data.
Alex On Apr 3, 2012, at 7:11 AM, James Whisstock wrote: > Hi > > I was thinking about the last statement in the Acta editorial - "It is > important to note, however, that in neither of these cases was a single frame > of data collected. Not one.". This brought me back to the images.. > > To date there is no "global" acceptance that original diffractiom images must > be deposited (though I personally think there should be). Many of the > arguments around this issue relate to the time and space required to house > such data. However (and apologies if this has already been raised and I have > missed it), if our sole intent is to ascertain that there's no trouble at > t'mill then deposition of a modest wedge of data and / or a 0 and 90, while > not ideal, may be sufficient to provide a decent additional check and > balance, particularly if such images, headers etc were automatically analysed > as part of the already excellent validation tools in development. > > I'm sure there are a number of clever ways (that could be unadvertised or > kept confidential to the pdb) that could be used to check off sufficient > variables within such data such that it should (?) be very difficult to > falsify images without triggering alarm bells. > > Of course this would probably then drive those that are truly bonkers to > attempt to fabricate realistically noisy false diffraction images, however I > would hope that such a scheme might make things just a little more difficult > for those with fraudulent intent, particularly if no one (apart from the > developers) knows precisely how and what the checking software checks! > > While it seems sad that it's come to this cell biologists and biochemists > have had to deal with more and more sophisticated versions of the > "photoshopped western" for years. Accordingly, most high profile journals > run figures through commercial software that does a reasonable job of > detection of such issues. > > J > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 03/04/2012, at 11:10 PM, Dyda <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I think that to review a paper containing a structure derived from >> crystallographic data should indeed involve the referee having access >> to coordinates and to the electron density. Without this access it >> is not possible to judge the quality and very often even the >> soundness of statements in the paper. >> >> I think the argument that this may give a competitive advantage >> to the referee who him or herself maybe working on the same thing >> should be mute, as I thought article refereeing was supposed to >> be a confidential process. Breaching this would be a serious >> ethical violation. In my experience, before agreeing to review, >> we see the abstract, I was always thought that I was supposed to >> decline if there is a potential conflict with my own work. >> Perhaps naively, but I always assumed that everyone acts like this. >> >> Unfortunately however, there is another serious issue. >> >> After a very troubling experience with a paper I reviewed, I discussed >> this issue with journal editors. What they said was that they already >> have a hell of time to find people who agree to referee, by raising the >> task level (asking refs to look at coords and density) they feared >> that no one would agree. Actually, perhaps many have noticed the >> large number of 5 liner referee reports saying really not much about a >> full length research article. People simply don't have the time to >> put the effort in. So I am not sure how realistic is to ask even more, >> for something that at some level, is pro bono work. >> >> >> Fred >> [32m******************************************************************************* >> Fred Dyda, Ph.D. Phone:301-402-4496 >> Laboratory of Molecular Biology Fax: 301-496-0201 >> DHHS/NIH/NIDDK e-mail:[email protected] >> Bldg. 5. Room 303 >> Bethesda, MD 20892-0560 URGENT message e-mail: [email protected] >> Google maps coords: 39.000597, -77.102102 >> http://www2.niddk.nih.gov/NIDDKLabs/IntramuralFaculty/DydaFred >> *******************************************************************************[m >
