From a statistical point of view, there could be a rare bad apple reviewer
as well as a rare bad apple (fraud intending) author. Life is inherently
risky
but we still cross streets.
More important, science is based on accessibility of primary data
and reproducibility of results. Without primary data (in the normal
case SFs) the results are not falsifiable and in Poppers sense
en par with quackery. Most editors and authors should be susceptible
to that argument.
BR
-----Original Message-----
From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dyda
Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2009 8:33 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [ccp4bb] pdb-l: Retraction of 12 Structures....
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 11:58:27 +0530 Dr. Anthony Addlagatta wrote:
>Bernhard,
>
>I would be worried about sending the structure factors and the coordinates
along with
>the manuscript.
I wonder why?
Cheers
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
