From: http://www.ccp4.ac.uk/ccp4bb.php
“CCP4bb is an electronic mailing list intended to host discussions about topics of general interest to macromolecular crystallographers. Any crystallographic-related item is acceptable, and doesn't have to be directly related to CCP4. The bulletin board is routinely used to request information, and to inform people about job vacancies, new services and the availability of new or updated software.” “Some specific rules: · We strongly discourage the use of attachments to messages, as they can be annoying to those on slow networks links. If you wish to show e.g. a picture of your unknown density, please post on a web site, and include a link in the BB posting. · We do not condone illegal file sharing, and breaking of copyright. To avoid any misunderstandings, please do not use ccp4bb to ask for PDFs of articles. · While it is reasonable to ask for personal experiences with programs or instruments, please avoid polls of what is the best program/instrument/manufacturer. The results will be statistically highly dubious, and will antagonise the hard-working people providing the program/instrument. · Many experts give their time for free to answer questions on CCP4BB. Out of courtesy to them, it is strongly recommended that subscribers use their real names when posting questions.” I for one do not feel that the message below meets these guidelines as it would appear to me to be a personal matter between yourself and your supervisor. I suspect others share my opinion. Regards Graeme From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Smith Lee Sent: 20 October 2015 09:41 To: ccp4bb Subject: [ccp4bb] a question related to structurebiology publication Dear All, At a specific time I joined a lab working on protein complex. Before I joined the lab they collaborate with the other crystallography lab and get the diffraction data of several crystals (including the initial models, which were without any refinements, including the registration errors, the poor Ramachandran outliers, the poor rotamer outliers, the loop missing, etc). Clearly my host lab did not have the ability to do the refine, and they also did not hope their previous collaborator to work on the refine. I joined the lab at this critical point, and complete all the refinements. In addition, during the refinement process I have some significant discoveries on the biology sides by solving the refinement process (for example, without my establishing the missing loops, the 3-D structural cannot explain any biology function at all, which was recognized by the lab). Besides, in this lab I also worked on several structures based on cryo-EM map. The map data was not collected and processed by me, but the model was built by me, and the refinement was done by me. During the refinement process, all (or most or some) the biological functions have been explained by me based on the structure. I did not take part in the biochemistry part research, but all the mutations (the only biochemistry .research related done in the lab) were designed base on the 3-D structure I refined (for crystallography structure) or I modelled and refined (for the cryo-em structure). Now the lab started to write the publications. At this moment the boss have not informed me to join the several-group for the writing. Most importantly the boss has requested me several times to tell exactly how to solve the structure I solved to my fellows (who were in writing the publication now), which I have not disclosed. Further, if I told them, it seems they would repeat the process, and even they repeat exactly my way, the final results can be a little different, for example the Ramachandran favoured can be 93.25 for one run to 93.10 for the repeat run , in this way they would claim the structure solving was done by themself. Another situation was that, the ones starting writing the manuscripts could not solved the 3-D structures at all, but the boss has phone to somebody else that the 3-D structure was solved by that guy. And the guy even claimed he built the cryo-em model in the large scale group meeting in the situation both the building and refine were completed by myself. The other trend was that, the other lab members especially lacked structure biology knowledge. When I made a PPT on my structure biology research, after several days they would say my figures were not nicely prepared (but my PPT is for the purpose at the moment of preparation), and they tod me they will prepare much better one (in this way they can modify mine), in this way it seems they would regarded I have not taking part in the publications if they publish (the boss claim if he did not adopt any of my research for the publication, what should I do). When I negotiated with my boss to join his group, I have told him the reason I joined his group is that I intended to have more papers. Considering the situation, will you please advise how can I protect my right as the co-author and even my right as the major co-author? Best regards. Smith -- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential, copyright and or privileged material, and are for the use of the intended addressee only. If you are not the intended addressee or an authorised recipient of the addressee please notify us of receipt by returning the e-mail and do not use, copy, retain, distribute or disclose the information in or attached to the e-mail. Any opinions expressed within this e-mail are those of the individual and not necessarily of Diamond Light Source Ltd. Diamond Light Source Ltd. cannot guarantee that this e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses and we cannot accept liability for any damage which you may sustain as a result of software viruses which may be transmitted in or with the message. Diamond Light Source Limited (company no. 4375679). Registered in England and Wales with its registered office at Diamond House, Harwell Science and Innovation Campus, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0DE, United Kingdom
