Hi everybody,
since we seem to have a little Easter discussion about crystallographic
statistics anyway, I would like to bring up one more topic.
A recent email sent to me said: "Another referee complained that the
completeness in that bin was too low at 85%" - my answer was that I
consider the referee's assertion as indicating a (unfortunately not
untypical case of) severe statistical confusion. Actually, there is no
reason at all to discard a resolution shell just because it is not
complete, and what would be a cutoff, if there were one? What
constitutes "too low"?
The benefit of including also incomplete resolution shells is that every
reflection constitutes a restraint in refinement (and thus reduces
overfitting), and contributes its little bit of detail to the electron
density map. Some people may be mis-lead by a wrong understanding of the
"cats and ducks" examples by Kevin Cowtan: omitting further data from
maps makes Fourier ripples/artifacts worse, not better.
The unfortunate consequence of the referee's opinion (and its
enforcement and implementation in papers) is that the structures that
result from the enforced re-refinement against truncated data are
_worse_ than the original data that included the "incomplete" resolution
shells.
So could we as a community please abandon this inappropriate and
un-justified practice - of course after proper discussion here?
Kay
|