Nature DOES require availability of structure factors and coordinates as
a matter of policy, and also to make them available for review on demand.
If the reviewer does not want them, the editor can't do anything about.
One also cannot demand of a biologist reviewer to reconstruct
maps, but others long ago and I recently have suggested in nature to make
at least the RSCC mandatory reading for to reviewers - a picture
says more than words...
One way would be to carefully pair reviewers for crystallographic papers -
a competent biologist and a competent crystallographer.
Being not a famous biologist I am generally unimpressed by the
story, and unemotional about the crystallography. The biology reviewer
on the other hand could make the point how relevant and exciting
the structure and its biological implications are. The
proper pairing is something where I would lay the responsibility
heavy on the journal editors. That is just a matter of due diligence.
br
-----Original Message-----
From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
[log in to unmask]
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 5:10 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] nature cb3 response
A comment from my collaborator's student suggests a partial answer. This
afternoon he happened to say "but of course the reviewers will look at the
model, I just deposited it!". He was shocked to find that "hold for pub"
means that even reviewers can't access the data. Can that be changed? It
would take a bit of coordination between journals and the PDB, but I think
the student is right - it is rather shocking that the data is sitting there
nicely deposited but the reviewers can't review it.
Phoebe Rice
|