What about going on a different route ? If the author name will be confident as well it may cause the community to judge the scientific part by itself without relating identities and locations. In that case you may even allow the release of coordinates. Another problem that may rise from depositing structures prior to reviewing process is that in many cases if a structure was deposited and you as reviewer find problems the author needs to redeposit it even for small alterations as small shifts in the resolution limits.
Is anyone consider the problem of supplying coordinates as part of reviewing process to groups that are in competition (unknowingly)? You may loose your publication as a result. Raz On 11/08/2011 10:52, Miguel Ortiz LombardÃa wrote: > On 11/08/11 09:13, Nian Huang wrote: >> To make my idea a little bit clearer, the reviewers first make the >> acceptance decision just based on the paper itself, on the condition the >> coordinate matches the description of the paper. Then the editor >> promises the publication date and the pdb can be subjected to final >> quick review, either by the reviewers or a special team from the journal. >> >> Nian >> > Too complicated and prone to error. Also, why wasting time judging a > paper that may simply be wishful thinking, or worse? > > I second Sankar's view of open reviewing. But it won't happen. Not any > time soon, I'm afraid. Anyway, that's just a symptom among others, > actually, see: > > http://www.lab-times.org/labtimes/issues/lt2011/lt02/lt_2011_02_24_31.pdf > > -- ---------------------------------------------------- Raz Zarivach, Ph.D. Department of Life Sciences and the National Institute of Biotechnology in the Negev Ben-Gurion University of the Negev POB 653 Zip code 84105 Beer-Sheva Israel Home page: http://lifeserv.bgu.ac.il/wb/zarivach/ tel: +972-8-646-1999 cell: +972-50-5754808 fax: +972-8-6472970 skype: zarivach ra...@yahoo.com ----------------------------------------------------
