I may be missing something here, but I don't think you have to rebut anything. You simply report that someone else has rebutted it. Along the lines of
Many scientists regard this published structure as unreliable since a misconduct investigation by the University of Alabama at Birmingham has concluded that it was, "more likely than not", faked [1] [1] http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091222/full/462970a.html On 15 May 2014 18:00, Nat Echols <nathaniel.ech...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Patrick Shaw Stewart < > patr...@douglas.co.uk> wrote: > >> It seems to me that the Wikipedia mechanism works wonderfully well. One >> rule is that you can't make assertions yourself, only report pre-existing >> material that is attributable to a "reliable published source". >> > > This rule would be a little problematic for annotating the PDB. It > requires a significant amount of effort to publish a peer-reviewed article > or even just a letter to the editor, and none of us are being paid to write > rebuttals to dodgy structures. > > -Nat > -- patr...@douglas.co.uk Douglas Instruments Ltd. Douglas House, East Garston, Hungerford, Berkshire, RG17 7HD, UK Directors: Peter Baldock, Patrick Shaw Stewart http://www.douglas.co.uk Tel: 44 (0) 148-864-9090 US toll-free 1-877-225-2034 Regd. England 2177994, VAT Reg. GB 480 7371 36
