have a look at this case, no danger of your coordinates going to anyone but yourself if you do it this way: http://publicationethics.org/case/author-creates-bogus-email-accounts-proposed-reviewers
On 26 Apr 2012, at 12:02, Jrh wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > I have followed this thread with great interest. It reminds me of the Open > Commission Meeting of the Biological Macromolecules Commission in Geneva in > 2002 at the IUCr Congress. Ie at which it was concluded that protein > coordinates and diffraction data would not be provided to referees. > > The ethics and rights of readers, authors and referees is a balancing act, as > Jeremy and others have emphasised these different constituency's views. > > The aim of this email though is to draw your attention to the Committee on > Publication Ethics (COPE) work and case studies, which are extensive. Ie see:- > > http://publicationethics.org/ > > The COPE Forum will also provide advice on case submissions that are made of > alleged publication malpractice, various of which are quite subtle. The > processes as well though following on from obvious malpractice eg how a > university research malpractice committee can be convened are also detailed. > > Greetings, > John > > Prof John R Helliwell DSc > > > > On 26 Apr 2012, at 06:10, Jeremy Tame <jt...@tsurumi.yokohama-cu.ac.jp> wrote: > >> The problem is it is not the PI who is jumping, it may be a postdoc he/she >> is throwing. >> >> Priority makes careers (look back at the Lavoisier/Priestly, Adams/LeVerrier >> or >> Cope/Marsh controversies), and the history of scientific reviewing is not >> all edifying. >> >> Too many checks, not enough balances. Science is probably better served if >> the >> author can publish without passing on the pdb model to a potentially >> unscrupulous >> reviewer, and if there are minor errors in the published paper then a >> competing >> group also has reason to publish its own view. The errors already have to >> evade the >> excellent validation tools we now have thanks to so many talented >> programmers, >> and proper figures and tables (plus validation report) should be enough for >> a review. >> The picture we have of haemoglobin is now much more accurate than the ones >> which came out decades ago, but those structures were very useful in the >> mean >> time. A requirement of resolution better than 2 Angstroms would probably >> stop poor >> models entering PDB, but I don't think it would serve science as a whole. >> Science >> is generally a self-correcting process, rather than a demand for perfection >> in every >> paper. Computer software follows a similar pattern - bug reports don't >> always invalidate the >> program. >> >> I have happily released data and coordinates via PDB before publication, >> even back in the >> 1990s when this was unfashionable, but would not do so if I felt it risked a >> postdoc >> failing to publish a key paper before competitors. It might be helpful if >> journals were >> more amenable to new structures of "solved" proteins as the biology often >> emerges >> from several models of different conformations or ligation states. But in a >> "publish or >> perish" world, authors need rights too. Reviewers do a necessary job, but >> there is a >> need for balance. >> >> The attached figure shows a French view of Le Verrier discovering Uranus, >> while >> Adams uses his telescope for a quite different purpose. >> >> <Adams_Leverrier.jpg> >> >> >> On Apr 26, 2012, at 2:01 AM, Ethan Merritt wrote: >> >>> On Wednesday, April 25, 2012 09:40:01 am James Holton wrote: >>> >>>> If you want to make a big splash, then don't complain about >>>> being asked to leap from a great height. >>> >>> >>> This gets my vote as the best science-related quote of the year. >>> >>> Ethan >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Ethan A Merritt >>> Biomolecular Structure Center, K-428 Health Sciences Bldg >>> University of Washington, Seattle 98195-7742 >>
