That is an extraordinary case, and it certainly took a huge amount of work. What about structures that are obviously wrong based on inspection of the density, but no one has bothered to challenge yet? The TWILIGHT database helps some, if that counts, but it doesn't catch everything.
-Nat On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Patrick Shaw Stewart < patr...@douglas.co.uk> wrote: > > 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 >
