That must be an NMR journal :-) Jürgen
On Oct 18, 2012, at 3:34 PM, Anastassis Perrakis wrote: On 18 Oct 2012, at 21:30, Bosch, Juergen wrote: Tassos, just to clarify what you are saying in the Journal with 2% deposition after submission, 98% have been deposited prior to submission (the way it should be). Is that what you are saying or am I reading that wrong ? Yes, that is what I am saying! 2% is good, 50% is bad. (btw, the 'worse' is close to 70% - any guesses?) A. Or are you saying only 2% of structures are deposited in that journal ? Jürgen On Oct 18, 2012, at 3:24 PM, Anastassis Perrakis wrote: Just to add in the controversy, with a somewhat related issue: Current crystallographic ethic presumes that a structure is deposited just before the submission of the paper. In a survey we did, we found that while in one journal only 2% of structures are deposited after the paper submission date, on another thats 5%, on another one that is 29% and in yet another one close to 50%. The journals are Nature, Science, ActaD and Proteins in order of decreasing IF. Is there any correlation? To get some guesses first, Robbie can send the answer tomorrow at around noon (as I will be unavailable travelling ...) Tassos On 18 Oct 2012, at 21:13, Bernhard Rupp (Hofkristallrat a.D.) wrote: Randy Read just pointed out to me that in their case-controlled analysis paper http://journals.iucr.org/d/issues/2009/02/00/ba5130/index.html when considering lower resolution and other factors, the vanity journals seem to come out no worse than the rest. In any case I suspect any retractions are underrepresented in those journals because they fight it harder ;-) Best, BR -----Original Message----- From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Ethan Merritt Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 11:11 AM To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK<mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] PNAS on fraud Fang et al. claim that R^2 = 0.0866, which means that CC = 0.29. While a correlation coefficient of less than 0.3 is not "a complete lack of correlation", it's still rather weak. The "highly significant" must be taken in a purely statistical sense. That is, it doesn't mean "the measures are highly correlated", it means "the evidence for non-zero correlation is very strong". Ethan ...................... Jürgen Bosch Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health Department of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology Johns Hopkins Malaria Research Institute 615 North Wolfe Street, W8708 Baltimore, MD 21205 Office: +1-410-614-4742 Lab: +1-410-614-4894 Fax: +1-410-955-2926 http://lupo.jhsph.edu<http://lupo.jhsph.edu/> ...................... Jürgen Bosch Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health Department of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology Johns Hopkins Malaria Research Institute 615 North Wolfe Street, W8708 Baltimore, MD 21205 Office: +1-410-614-4742 Lab: +1-410-614-4894 Fax: +1-410-955-2926 http://lupo.jhsph.edu
