What a statement ! Give reviewers maps, I agree however, what if the reviewer has no clue of these things we call structures ? I think for those people table 1 might still provide some justification. I would argue it should go into the supplement at least.
Jürgen Sent from my iPad On Aug 28, 2013, at 5:58, "Bernhard Rupp" <[email protected]> wrote: >> We don't currently have a really good measure of that point where adding > the extra shell of data adds "significant" information >> so it probably isn't something to agonise over too much. K & D's paired > refinement may be useful though. > > That seems to be a correct assessment of the situation and a forceful > argument to eliminate the > review nonsense of nitpicking on <I/sigI> values, associated R-merges, and > other > pseudo-statistics once and for good. We can now, thanks to data deposition, > at any time generate or download the maps and the models > and judge for ourselves even minute details of local model quality from > there. > As far as use and interpretation goes, when the model meets the map is where > the rubber meets the road. > I therefore make the heretic statement that the entire table 1 of data > collection statistics, justifiable in pre-deposition times > as some means to guess structure quality can go the way of X-ray film and be > almost always eliminated from papers. > There is nothing really useful in Table 1, and all its data items and more > are in the PDB header anyhow. > Availability of maps for review and for users is the key point. > > Cheers, BR
