Keeping Bernard's book as reference, it is the best way. Kevin
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Tom Peat <tom.p...@csiro.au> wrote: > Bernard went to a lot of work to verify that this structure was wrong, so we > should also thank him for his efforts. > It is good to see someone who has a hunch follow that up and let the rest of > us know about it. > Thanks Bernard! > > > Tom Peat > Biophysics Group > CSIRO, CMSE > 343 Royal Parade > Parkville, VIC, 3052 > +613 9662 7304 > +614 57 539 419 > tom.p...@csiro.au > ________________________________________ > From: CCP4 bulletin board [CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Anastassis > Perrakis [a.perra...@nki.nl] > Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 7:59 AM > To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK > Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] very informative - Trends in Data Fabrication > > Reading the paper from Dr. Hofkristallrat a.D. and the editorial in ActaF, I > must say that besides the rather reasonable demand for journals to include > crystallography experts as referees, "Table 1" would have fooled me as > referee. A validation report of the VTF style might not had helped either in > refereeing - in this case. Alarm bells could had rung possibly if the PDB was > re-refining all submitted structures and look for 'too good to be true' > improvements (sorry Robbie ... we are not there yet to improve things SO > much!). Saving the images in a repository would had been equally unlikely to > have helped (they would had submitted some data ... unless these were > systematically validated and cross-matched to the CRYST data cards no alarm > bells either - even if running PDB_REDO in all submissions appears a tad > unrealistic, re-processing all images and matching them to CRYST records > seems more troublesome at the present moment). > > A thing that could had helped, would had been if our biology colleagues who > want a structure for their story would had valued more the structural > contribution by scrutinising the data (a corresponding author must scrutinise > all data before accepting responsibility - and not when questioned throw the > hands up waving 'it was not me ...'). Maybe ourselves as a community could > also help by making our colleagues aware that crystallographic work is a tad > more than 'and the author in the middle of the paper just contributed a > structure' and explain them that if they want to be using structures for > their publications they should be always prepared to engage in close and real > collaborations where both sides accept responsibility for the data of each > other, as it happens in many fruitful collaborations between biologists and > "crystallographers" (such as these I had the privilege to engage with > collaborators that criticised my data, as I did theirs ...). > > regards to all - > > Tassos > > (and please, no 1st April joke with fraud cases ....!) -- Kevin Jin Sharing knowledge each other is always very joyful...... Website: http://www.jinkai.org/
