On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Mark Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Getting to Eric's point about an impasse, if the PDB will not claim the > authority to safeguard the integrity of their holdings (as per their > quoted statement in Bernhard's message below), then who can? I think this may in part boil down to a semantic dispute over the meaning of "integrity". I interpreted it to mean "integrity (and public availability) of the data as deposited by the authors", which by itself is quite a lot of work. Safeguarding the integrity of the peer-review process is supposed to be the job of the journals, some of which - unlike the PDB - are making a tidy profit from our efforts. Since they justify this profit based on the value they supposedly add as gatekeepers, I don't think it's unreasonable for us to expect them to do their job, rather than leave it to the PDB annotators, who surely have enough to deal with. I do share some of the concern about 2hr0, but I am curious where the line should be drawn. This is an extraordinary case where the researcher's institution requested retraction, but I think everyone who's been in this field for a while has a list of dodgy structures that they think should be retracted - not always with justification. -Nat
