On 01/21/2016 05:48 PM, Edward A. Berry wrote:
~~~~
>
> Also, pubmed commons allows comments on the abstract page for every article.
> Whenever you look up an article on pubmed, there is an invitation to
> leave comments below, and if a comment is left it is prominently
> displayed above the article like "See comment in PubMed Commons below"
> For example
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7737189
>
> This could also be used a warning to the unwary
> that something may not be quite right -
> if you are not afraid of being sued.
>
Now NCBI is discontinuing this capability due to lack of participation:
https://ncbiinsights.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2018/02/01/pubmed-commons-to-be-discontinued/ .
If you think it is a good service even though only a small percentage
of papers get any comments, you can say so by leaving a comment on that blog post
(there are quite a few already).
> eab
>
> On 01/21/2016 03:19 PM, Bellini, Dom wrote:
>> Perhaps a temporary and quick solution could be to have an online spreadsheet where every one could annotate erroneous structures when they encounter one (writing down PDB code with a comment).
>>
>>
>> It wont solve publication-related issues but at least it would help people working with PDB big data to filter out the ones on the list from their databases.
>>
>>
>> I am taking bets on how long the list will be!
>>
>>
>> D
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* CCP4 bulletin board <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Bernhard Rupp <[log in to unmask]>
>> *Sent:* 21 January 2016 19:56
>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>> *Subject:* Re: [ccp4bb] questionable structures
>> Simple statement: "The structure model is is almost certainly wrong (to the point of 'beyond reasonable doubt') and it should not be in any data base."
>> How to handle the rest of the paper depends on the degree of inference based on the flawed model. But I am not doing all the work for the editors ;-)
>>
>> BR
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 8:40 PM, Keller, Jacob <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>> BR:____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> Not clear what more you would have wanted to the editor to write—what’s missing?____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> Or were you commenting on the lack of concrete actions?____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> JPK____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> Bernhard Rupp (Hofkristallrat a. D)
>> 001 (925) 209-7429
>> +43 (676) 571-0536
>> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> http://www.ruppweb.org/
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> The hard part about playing chicken
>> is to know when to flinch
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
|