-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
The policy doesn't say you can "supersede" someone else's entry. It says you can deposit your own version, if you have a publication. Then there will be two bogus structures instead of one. Pretty soon the PDB will start to look like one of the crappy Matrix movies. Dale Tronrud On 5/14/2014 6:47 PM, James Holton wrote: > > A little "loophole" that might make everyone happy can be found > here: http://www.wwpdb.org/policy.html search for "A re-refined > structure based on the data from a different research group" > > Apparently, anyone can supersede any PDB entry, even if they > weren't the original depositor. All they need is a citation. > Presumably, someone could re-refine 2hr0 against the "data" that > were deposited with it. Possibly showing how to get an R-factor of > 0% out of it. I'd definitely cite that paper. > > -James Holton MAD Scientist > > On 5/14/2014 11:01 AM, Nat Echols wrote: >> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Mark Wilson <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> As for the meaning of integrity, I'm using this word in place of >> others that might be considered more legally actionable. A >> franker conversation would likely more clearly draw the line that >> we're wrestling with here. >> >> >> The reference to "integrity" was Bernhard's - quoting the PDB >> mission statement; I just disagree with his interpretation of the >> meaning. As far as 2hr0 is concerned, I think we're quite safe >> calling it "fraudulent" at this point, since (ironically) Nature >> itself has said as much: >> >> http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091222/full/462970a.html >> >> -Nat > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlN0V1UACgkQU5C0gGfAG124eQCffE9h2fdDDi2TDLSwr9DabrZI GzoAn2QTo1/VTW8ZYSHCpcgCX+EHFv/q =Ja+6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
