I think that to review a paper containing a structure derived from
crystallographic data should indeed involve the referee having access
to coordinates and to the electron density. Without this access it
is not possible to judge the quality and very often even the
soundness of statements in the paper.
I think the argument that this may give a competitive advantage
to the referee who him or herself maybe working on the same thing
should be mute, as I thought article refereeing was supposed to
be a confidential process. Breaching this would be a serious
ethical violation. In my experience, before agreeing to review,
we see the abstract, I was always thought that I was supposed to
decline if there is a potential conflict with my own work.
Perhaps naively, but I always assumed that everyone acts like this.
Unfortunately however, there is another serious issue.
After a very troubling experience with a paper I reviewed, I discussed
this issue with journal editors. What they said was that they already
have a hell of time to find people who agree to referee, by raising the
task level (asking refs to look at coords and density) they feared
that no one would agree. Actually, perhaps many have noticed the
large number of 5 liner referee reports saying really not much about a
full length research article. People simply don't have the time to
put the effort in. So I am not sure how realistic is to ask even more,
for something that at some level, is pro bono work.
Fred
[32m*******************************************************************************
Fred Dyda, Ph.D. Phone:301-402-4496
Laboratory of Molecular Biology Fax: 301-496-0201
DHHS/NIH/NIDDK e-mail:[log in to unmask]
Bldg. 5. Room 303
Bethesda, MD 20892-0560 URGENT message e-mail: [log in to unmask]
Google maps coords: 39.000597, -77.102102
http://www2.niddk.nih.gov/NIDDKLabs/IntramuralFaculty/DydaFred
*******************************************************************************[m
|
