Nature DOES require availability of structure factors and coordinates as a matter of policy, and also to make them available for review on demand. If the reviewer does not want them, the editor can't do anything about.
One also cannot demand of a biologist reviewer to reconstruct maps, but others long ago and I recently have suggested in nature to make at least the RSCC mandatory reading for to reviewers - a picture says more than words... One way would be to carefully pair reviewers for crystallographic papers - a competent biologist and a competent crystallographer. Being not a famous biologist I am generally unimpressed by the story, and unemotional about the crystallography. The biology reviewer on the other hand could make the point how relevant and exciting the structure and its biological implications are. The proper pairing is something where I would lay the responsibility heavy on the journal editors. That is just a matter of due diligence. br -----Original Message----- From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 5:10 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] nature cb3 response A comment from my collaborator's student suggests a partial answer. This afternoon he happened to say "but of course the reviewers will look at the model, I just deposited it!". He was shocked to find that "hold for pub" means that even reviewers can't access the data. Can that be changed? It would take a bit of coordination between journals and the PDB, but I think the student is right - it is rather shocking that the data is sitting there nicely deposited but the reviewers can't review it. Phoebe Rice
