I agree with Martyn, Pubmed Commons could be a great model. I believe you have to be a published author to obtain an account. It might cut down on some of the spam/noise if the PDB adopted such a model for depositors.
Best regards, Z *********************************************** Zachary A. Wood, Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology University of Georgia Life Sciences Building, Rm A426B 120 Green Street Athens, GA 30602-7229 Office: 706-583-0304 Lab: 706-583-0303 FAX: 706-542-1738 *********************************************** On May 15, 2014, at 7:29 AM, MARTYN SYMMONS <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree some forum for community annotation and commenting would be a good > thing for users of structural data. > There was an attempt to do that with the pdbwiki project which was a > community resource for the bioinformatics community. Unfortunately pdbwiki > has now folded (see http://pdbwiki.org/) They are now directing people to > Proteopedia. However Proteopedia has a more educative focus I think - rather > than capturing technical questions and input. > > Pubmed commons (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedcommons/), which is a forum > for discussing the literature, is currently under testing. Perhaps this is > the sort of thing that could work for structural data? > > cheers > Martyn > > From: Ethan A Merritt <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Wednesday, 14 May 2014, 19:22 > Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] PDB passes 100,000 structure milestone > > 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 <[email protected] > > > <mailto:[email protected]>> 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 > >
