***********************
This message has been scanned by the InterScan for CSC SSM by IICT security policy and found to be free of known security risks.
***********************
Bernhard,
I would be worried about sending the structure factors and the coordinates along with
the manuscript. However, once the scientific merits of the paper are judged and it can
be acceptable for the journal, the coordinates and the data have to be reviewed and then
only the paper has to be "completely accepted". Important, these data either should be
directly from the PDB database or the identical set from the authors.
This, not only will give confidence to the "genuine scientist" but will also keep a
check on the perpetrators and more responsibility on the reviewers/publishers.
Anthony
-----------------------------------------------------
Dr. Anthony Addlagatta
Scientist E1
Indian Institute of Chemical Technology [IICT]
Tarnaka, Hyderabad
AP-500 607, INDIA
Tel:91-40-27191812
---------- Original Message -----------
From: Bernhard Rupp <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:47:24 -0800
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] FW: pdb-l: Retraction of 12 Structures....
> ***********************
> This message has been scanned by the InterScan for CSC SSM at IICT and found
> to be free of known security risks. ***********************
>
> I have to say to the credit of Nature and competent authors that in
>
> every case I have requested structure factors and coordinates for review
>
> they have arranged to provide these. AFAIK this is their editorial policy,
> but
>
> it requires that at least one of the reviewers knows what to do
>
> with the SF as and coordinates. That, however, does not (yet??) seem to
>
> be policy, i.e. to pair a technical crystallography review with one
>
> that evaluates biological and other relevance.
>
> BR
>
> From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Prof.
> Joel L. Sussman
> Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 1:31 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] FW: pdb-l: Retraction of 12 Structures....
>
> 11-Dec-2009 11:30 Rehovot
>
> Dear All,
>
> I Agree fully with Tommi, and feel, in parallel, we in the MX community must
> think of better tools for referees to review papers and insist that these be
> followed. For example we should insist on getting BOTH the coords and
> structure factors for papers submitted, so it would be possible to do test
> on the structures which appear to have 'question marks'. Without this data,
> it is very difficult to do a serious job in refereeing.
>
> Also, any manuscript, submitted to any journal, where BOTH the structure
> factors and coords are not submitted to the PDB should be rejected
> immediately without further review. This should be the policy of the
> reviewer, independent of any particular policy of the journals.
>
> It might be worthwhile for the MX community to also consider writing a
> strong letter to the journals in which published the papers for which the
> structures have now been retracted, to state just how serious this matter is
> and that the journals should also take much more responsibility of finding
> better ways to have these papers and structures reviewed.
>
> Joel
>
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> Prof. Joel L. Sussman
>
> Director, Israel Structural Proteomics Center
>
> Dept. of Structural Biology
>
> Weizmann Institute of Science
>
> Rehovot 76100 ISRAEL
>
> Tel: +972 8-934 4531
>
> Fax: +972 8-934 6312
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
> www.weizmann.ac.il/~joel; www.weizmann.ac.il/ISPC
>
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> On 11 Dec 2009, at 11:19, Tommi Kajander wrote:
>
> Would the exact analysis of how each of these things were wrong and
> fabricated be somewhere
> available???? Would be fair (apart from the known case of C3b) to have the
> whole analysis available
> instead of just this kind of news feed. I suspect its not obvious by five
> minute check in all cases.
>
> Perhaps there needs to be ways within PDB in form of automated tools that
> would raise those red
> flags in suspicious cases (e.g. some data analysis --such as the
> contribution by solvent etc now that data beyond 8Å
> is by default used in refinement) - as it appears peer review/editing by
> journals isn't/cant always be(?) stringent enough.
>
> In any case, some type of automated analysis of the whole data base might
> be a good idea, as there can be
> other cases (with another couple of thousand papers citing them..).
>
> tommi
>
> On Dec 10, 2009, at 4:16 PM, Ibrahim Moustafa wrote:
>
> "After a thorough examination of the available data, which included a
>
> re-analysis of each structure alleged to have been fabricated, the committee
>
> found a preponderance of evidence that structures 1BEF, 1CMW, 1DF9/2QID,
>
> 1G40, 1G44, 1L6L, 2OU1, 1RID, 1Y8E, 2A01, and 2HR0 were more likely than not
>
> falsified and/or fabricated and recommended that they be removed from the
>
> public record," the university said in its statement this week."
------- End of Original Message -------
This Mail Scanned by ClamAV and Spammassassin
|