What do you count as raw data? Rawest are the images - everything
beyond that is modellling - but archiving images is _expensive_!
Unmerged intensities are probably more manageable
Phil
On 16 Aug 2007, at 15:05, Ashley Buckle wrote:
> Dear Randy
>
> These are very valid points, and I'm so glad you've taken the
> important step of initiating this. For now I'd like to respond to
> one of them, as it concerns something I and colleagues in Australia
> are doing:
>>
>> The more information that is available, the easier it will be to
>> detect fabrication (because it is harder to make up more
>> information convincingly). For instance, if the diffraction data
>> are deposited, we can check for consistency with the known
>> properties of real macromolecular crystals, e.g. that they contain
>> disordered solvent and not vacuum. As Tassos Perrakis has
>> discovered, there are characteristic ways in which the standard
>> deviations depend on the intensities and the resolution. If
>> unmerged data are deposited, there will probably be evidence of
>> radiation damage, weak effects from intrinsic anomalous
>> scatterers, etc. Raw images are probably even harder to simulate
>> convincingly.
>
> After the recent Science retractions we realised that its about
> time raw data was made available. So, we have set about creating
> the necessary IT and software to do this for our diffraction data,
> and are encouraging Australian colleagues to do the same. We are
> about a week away from launching a web-accessible repository for
> our recently published (eg deposited in PDB) data, and this should
> coincide with an upcoming publication describing a new structure
> from our labs. The aim is that publication occurs simultaneously
> with release in PDB as well as raw diffraction data on our website.
> We hope to house as much of our data as possible, as well as data
> from other Australian labs, but obviously the potential dataset
> will be huge, so we are trying to develop, and make available
> freely to the community, software tools that allow others to easily
> setup their own repositories. After brief discussion with PDB the
> plan is that PDB include links from coordinates/SF's to the raw
> data using a simple handle that can be incorporated into a URL. We
> would hope that we can convince the journals that raw data must be
> made available at the time of publication, in the same way as
> coordinates and structure factors. Of course, we realise that
> there will be many hurdles along the way but we are convinced that
> simply making the raw data available ASAP is a 'good thing'.
>
> We are happy to share more details of our IT plans with the CCP4BB,
> such that they can be improved, and look forward to hearing feedback
>
> cheers
|