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.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>