I don't think all journals have that policy, and even so, making the
reviewers specifically request the data implies to the reviewees that
somebody out there doesn't trust them.
You shouldn't have to insult the authors in order to do a proper
reviewing job - you should just be able to download the data and
coordinates right along with the pdf.
Phoebe
At 09:29 AM 8/17/2007, you wrote:
>Phoebe,
>
>Any and every reviewer has right to request the coordinate file as well
>as sf file.
>The other question is: Why most of them are not exercising their rights?
>
>
>
>Vaheh Oganesyan
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of
>[log in to unmask]
>Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 8:10 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
>
>At 05:33 PM 8/16/2007, Bernhard Rupp wrote:
> >Ok, enough political (in)correctness. Irrespective of fabricated or
>not,
> >I think this points to a general problem of commercial journals and
> >their review process, as it seems that selling (.com) hot stuff
> >induces an extraordinary capability of denial.
> >
> >The comment, as someone noted, does not address the allegations
> >at all. This is reminiscent of my dealings with Nature in two
> >related cases: They ignore or stonewall until the dispute is ended
> >with an irrelevant comment. In one case, Axel B later proved
> >with the correct structure that what we had commented on earlier
> >was entirely correct.
> >In the second case, the comment (by some of the leading experts,
> >not just by me nobody) was rejected with no recourse based on another
> >non-fact-addressing author comment and not published at all.
> >
> >Compare this to a similar case, when the Jacs editor (.org <--)
>contacted me
> >
> >on its own accord to check for a related problem, leading to retraction
> >of the paper after the editor (a scientist himself) evaluated
> >facts and response.
> >
> >It also seems to depend on the handling Nature editor. I have made maps
>of
> >several structures from data unhesitantly provided by the editor when I
> >had reason to ask for them during review. Those were also responsive to
> >a mini-table-1-comment I sent on cb3, but I did not hear from the
>editor
> >assigned to cb3.
> >
> >This time again, the review completely failed (table 1 and comment
>issues),
> >and
> >the editorial process failed as well, because the response is not
>adequate.
> >If someone - as tentatively and tactfully it may have been phrased -
>accused
> >
> >me of faking data they'd eat shit until hell freezes over....
> >
> >It is as simple as that: Extraordinary claim (super structure, bizarre
>stats
> >and properties) requires extraordinary proof. This rule has not been
> >followed, which reflects poorly on the scientific process in this case.
> >
> >I also note that in no case known to me, persons involved in
>irregularities
> >have ever appeared as frequent (or at all) communicators on the ccp4bb.
> >
> >As long as grant review and tenure committees rely on automated
> >bibliometrics
> >and impact factors (and who knows who) to decide academic careers and
> >funding,
> >the big journals will remain the winners. The system has become
> >self-perpetuating.
> >
> >Back to grant writing now.....
> >Need to get that paper out to nature...
> >
> >Cheers, br
> >
> >PS: it is pointless flaming me. I am the messenger only.
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> >Bernhard Rupp
> >Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 2:03 PM
> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] nature cb3 comment pdf
> >
> >thxthxthx to all the day and night owls for the many copies!!!!
> >The winners have been selected, no more entries needed.
> >thx again br
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Miriam Hirshberg [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>Miriam
> >Hirshberg
> >Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 1:58 PM
> >To: Bernhard Rupp
> >Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] nature cb3 comment pdf
> >
> >
> >attached, Miri
> >
> >
> >On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, Bernhard Rupp wrote:
> >
> > > my nature web connection just died for good (probably a preventive
> > > measure..)
> > > Could someone kindly email me the pdfs of the comment and response?
> > > Thx br
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Bernhard Rupp
> > > 001 (925) 209-7429
> > > +43 (676) 571-0536
> > > [log in to unmask]
> > > [log in to unmask]
> > > http://www.ruppweb.org/
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > People can be divided in three classes:
> > > The few who make things happen
> > > The many who watch things happen
> > > And the overwhelming majority
> > > who have no idea what is happening.
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>---------------------------------------------------
>Phoebe A. Rice
>Assoc. Prof., Dept. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology
>The University of Chicago
>phone 773 834 1723
>fax 773 702 0439
>http://bmb.bsd.uchicago.edu/index.html
>http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/multimedia/pia06064.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phoebe A. Rice
Assoc. Prof., Dept. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology
The University of Chicago
phone 773 834 1723
fax 773 702 0439
http://bmb.bsd.uchicago.edu/index.html
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/multimedia/pia06064.html
|
