On Wednesday, 14 May, 2014 13:52:02 Phil Jeffrey wrote:
> As long as it's just a Technical Comments section - an obvious concern
> would be the signal/noise in the comments themselves. I'm sure PDB
> would not relish having to moderate that lot.
>
> Alternatively PDB can overtly link to papers that discuss technical
> issues that reference the particular structure - wrong or fraudulent
> structures are often associated with refereed publications that point
> that out, and structures with significant errors often show up in that
> way too. I once did a journal club on Muller (2013) Acta Cryst
> F69:1071-1076 and wish that could be associated with the relevant PDB
> file(s).
Perhaps some combination of those two ideas?
The PDB could associate with each deposited structure a crowd-sourced
list of published articles citing it. They already make an effort to
attach the primary citation, but so far as I know there is currently
no effort to track subsequent citations.
While spam comments in a free-format forum are probably inevitable,
spam submission of citing papers seems less likely to be a problem.
- Ethan
> > On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Zachary Wood <z...@bmb.uga.edu
> > <mailto:z...@bmb.uga.edu>> wrote:
> >
> > Hello All,
> >
> > Instead of placing the additional burden of policing on the good
> > people at the PDB, perhaps the entry page for each structure could
> > contain a comments section. Then the community could point out
> > serious concerns for the less informed users. At least that will
> > give users some warning in the case of particularly worrisome
> > structures. The authors of course could still reply to defend their
> > structure, and it may encourage some people to even correct their
> > errors.
> >
--
Ethan A Merritt
Biomolecular Structure Center, K-428 Health Sciences Bldg
MS 357742, University of Washington, Seattle 98195-7742
