I feel that checkCIF (and by extension, CCDC) is growing increasingly hostile to us crystallographic bottom-feeders who ply our trade with powder diffraction data. I'm sure that members of this group share my frustration in getting inappropriate complaints like a missing Flack parameter, _diffrn_measured_fraction_theta_full, or _diffrn_reflns_av_R_equivalents. At the moment, I am struggling over referees' reports that some of my structures should not be published because they throw level A and B alerts, without reading my validation reply form.
Brian Toby puts it very well (and in much more measured tones than I can muster) in International Tables vol. H, 4.10.6.3, "Many of the alerts it [checkCIF] reports are not appropriate for powder diffraction studies, ... it is hoped that the community will contribute to making this process even more valuable for the review of results." Is there such a movement underway? How can I join? Best, Peter ************************** Peter W. Stephens SUNY Distinguished Professor Emeritus Department of Physics and Astronomy Stony Brook University
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Please do NOT attach files to the whole list <alan.he...@neutronoptics.com> Send commands to <lists...@ill.fr> eg: HELP as the subject with no body text The Rietveld_L list archive is on http://www.mail-archive.com/rietveld_l@ill.fr/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
