JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for CCP4BB Archives


CCP4BB Archives

CCP4BB Archives


CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CCP4BB Home

CCP4BB Home

CCP4BB  April 2012

CCP4BB April 2012

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Off-topic: Supplying PDB file to reviewers

From:

"George M. Sheldrick" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

George M. Sheldrick

Date:

Thu, 19 Apr 2012 15:55:46 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (151 lines)

Colin,

Speaking as someone who has one foot in small molecule crystallography
and the other in macromolecular, I have to say that attitudes are
completely different, and that there are good reasons for this. A PhD
student or junior postdoc in a macromolecular lab may have spent the
last three (or more) years cloning, expressing. purifying and
crystallizing a protein, and it is very likely that three or more groups
elsewhere in the world are working on the same target. Even if the
organisms are different, usually only one group will be able to publish
in a high-profile journal, so being scooped is a major worry and happens
frequently, even when all concerned are completely honest. A single
small molecule structure is a very much smaller part of the average
chemical PhD which often involves dozens of structures, and a couple of
duplicated structures will have little influence on the future career of
the PhD student.

Releasing the PDB hold on a structure just before submitting the paper
has something to be said for it. I would like to do this more often, but
it is usually vetoed by paranoid biological co-authors. Even if one is
providing the competition with a good MR model, at least they will have
to cite it.

George

On 04/19/2012 03:09 PM, Colin Groom wrote:
> It has always struck me as something of a surprise that pre-publication review of structures in protein-land 
differs so significantly from small molecule-land. One of the activities
of the CCDC is to supply pre-release
CSD structures to referees, using a simple, automated system to
establish that the requestors are referees.
This avoids the need for any involvement of the depositor or journal and
allows a centralised record to be kept
as to who saw which structures and when (although, to my knowledge, we
have never needed to refer to this).
In 2012,  requests have averaged at about 5 a day, but the real figure
is probably much higher, as some journals
provide this facility themselves. The sense I get from the
small-molecule community is that they (we) have a
great degree of well placed trust and see real value in pre-publication
review of structures, not just papers -
I'm sure this is true for the overwhelming majority of the
macromolecular world too.
> 
> Colin
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of [log in to unmask]
> Sent: 19 April 2012 13:54
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Off-topic: Supplying PDB file to reviewers
> 
> This is off course a valid point. A desperate graduate student faking a
> structure risks his or hers career and reputation, while an anonymous
> referee, "borrowing" someone else's results gets away without any risk
> of being caught. Besides making the name of the reviewer public, I see
> other options:
> 
> 1) submit the coordinates and structure factors to the pdb to get a
> priority date as has been suggested before. Many journals require
> anyways a pdb code before acceptance of the paper. One could even
> publish this priority date in the paper in the footnote where the pdb
> code is mentioned.
> 2) require from referees a conflict-of-interest-statement that they, or
> close colleagues are not working on the same or a very similar
> structure. If an author gets the impression that he may have been
> scooped by a less-ethical referee, he could ask the journal to verify
> that the referees of his rejected paper were not involved in the
> accelerated publication. If it turns out that a referee has made a false
> statement this would clearly constitute fraud and a reason for
> repercussions.
> 
> Herman
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Jobichen Chacko
> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 2:12 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Off-topic: Supplying PDB file to reviewers
> 
> Dear All,
> Here comes the problem of blind reveiw, the authors are always at the
> receving end to share all there data, results and now the full
> cordinates to an unknown person, just trusting the journal editor. Why
> don't the journals think about making the name of the reviewer also
> public.
> 
> Eventhough the persons advocated giving the cordinates, there were cases
> of holding the paper for reveiw for few months and finally rejecting it,
> while a very close article appeared as accelerated publn within few
> weeks of rejection of the original paper. Refer to the previous
> discussion on fake structure.
> 
> Again it depends on how close you are towards the acceptance. Also
> hesitation to give away your cordiantes without any guarantee of
> publishing it in that journal cannot be considered as a big sin,
> especially if someone's graduation is depend on a single paper.
> 
> Jobi
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 6:34 AM, Marc Kvansakul
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Dear CCP4BBlers,
>>
>> I was wondering how common it is that reviewers request to have a copy
> 
>> of the PDB coordinate file for the review purpose. I have just been 
>> asked to supply this by an editor after several weeks of review, after
> 
>> one of the reviewers requested a copy.
>>
>> Not having ever been asked to do this before I feel just a tad 
>> uncomfortable about handing this over...
>>
>> Your opinions would be greatly appreciated.
>>
>> Best wishes
>>
>> Marc
>>
>> Dr. Marc Kvansakul
>> Laboratory Head, NHMRC CDA Fellow
>> Dept. of Biochemistry| La Trobe University | Bundoora Rm 218, Phys Sci
> 
>> Bld 4, Kingsbury Drive, Melbourne, 3086, Australia
>> T: 03 9479 2263 | F: 03 9479 2467 | E: [log in to unmask] |
>>
> 
> LEGAL NOTICE
> Unless expressly stated otherwise, information contained in this
> message is confidential. If this message is not intended for you,
> please inform [log in to unmask] and delete the message.
> The Cambridge Crystallographic Data Centre is a company Limited
> by Guarantee and a Registered Charity.
> Registered in England No. 2155347 Registered Charity No. 800579
> Registered office 12 Union Road, Cambridge CB2 1EZ.
> 

-- 
Prof. George M. Sheldrick FRS
Dept. Structural Chemistry,
University of Goettingen,
Tammannstr. 4,
D37077 Goettingen, Germany
Tel. +49-551-39-3021 or -3068
Fax. +49-551-39-22582

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager