The proper choice of reviewers is important, but perhaps some of the
burden for fact checking should be shifted to the journal. Some
journals are already doing image analysis to check gels/microscopy
images, and there is no reason why this cannot be extended for structures.
In practical terms, when you submit a paper, apart from uploading the
text and image files, coordinate file(s) and structure factors will also
have to be submitted. The journal would then run some scripts
(developed by CCP4?) on the coordinate/SF data and make a basic analysis
file available to the reviewers. This could be an extended version of
the table seen in crystallography papers, but with outlying values
highlighted, some fact-checking, and perhaps a summary for
non-crystallographer reviewers.
The journal could even make a more sophisticated "EDS"-type server
(perhaps contracted out to EDS?), where the electron density for any
region could be checked easily online by the reviewers, without having
to reveal the full structure factors and coordinates. This would keep
the burden for keeping the coordinates/structure factors confidential on
the journal rather than an anonymous reviewer.
The archiving/submission of raw data are important, but it is difficult
to see how even competent reviewers can be convinced to do detailed
analysis - even for something as easy to check as gels, I have never
gone beyond just zooming/squinting when reviewing papers.
Arun Malhotra
Bernhard Rupp wrote:
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: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
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
--
Arun Malhotra Phone: (305) 243-2826
Associate Professor Lab: (305) 243-2890
Dept. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology Fax: (305) 243-3955
University of Miami School of Medicine
PO Box 016129 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Miami, FL 33101 Web: http://structure.med.miami.edu
