Moving the subject further away from the original post...
I agree that the pdb deposition process has gotten better, but I still
regularly have issues with releasing of newly published structures.
There seem to be delays; just as you are reading this brand new,
interesting structure, you realize that the pdb and structure factors
are not released. Quite annoying. This is in large part the fault of the
authors, but maybe PDB could do better, too.
Here is a funny case (in the spirit of Fools' Day). About a year ago, I
asked the PDB to release a structure from a paper published in Nature.
Their response was, they could not, because the publication was a letter
to Nature, not an article. I rest my case.
Engin
On 4/2/09 7:56 AM, Anastassis Perrakis wrote:
On Apr 2, 2009, at 16:04, mesters wrote:
Let me start by quoting the following......
"/Therefore I'm afraid that we (i.e. PDB) are under considerable
pressure from the community at large to implement our publication policy
in this area.
We do understand your concern to make the entry as accurate as
possible."/
I love the /"under considerable pressure"/ and /"our publication
policy"/?
I am for sure not exerting pressure and do have my problems with the
policies at times.
Are you the one exerting pressure or do you have problems at times with
the policies? Please let me know!
Since that is a bit out of context I do not see how I could comment ...
- J. -
p.s. In addition, over the years, the deposition in general has not
become any simpler or faster. Or, has it?
Thats a clear question ... Yes, in my opinion PDB deposition has
changed over the years and is much better now than ever before.
Most of the people that have the rather dull job of checking entries
are doing an excellent job and are friendly and understanding.
(I have dealt mostly with the EBI/MSD site for depositions so I cant
tell for the RCSB)
A.
