-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
The policy doesn't say you can "supersede" someone else's entry.
It says you can deposit your own version, if you have a publication.
Then there will be two bogus structures instead of one. Pretty soon
the PDB will start to look like one of the crappy Matrix movies.
Dale Tronrud
On 5/14/2014 6:47 PM, James Holton wrote:
>
> A little "loophole" that might make everyone happy can be found
> here: http://www.wwpdb.org/policy.html search for "A re-refined
> structure based on the data from a different research group"
>
> Apparently, anyone can supersede any PDB entry, even if they
> weren't the original depositor. All they need is a citation.
> Presumably, someone could re-refine 2hr0 against the "data" that
> were deposited with it. Possibly showing how to get an R-factor of
> 0% out of it. I'd definitely cite that paper.
>
> -James Holton MAD Scientist
>
> On 5/14/2014 11:01 AM, Nat Echols wrote:
>> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Mark Wilson <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>> As for the meaning of integrity, I'm using this word in place of
>> others that might be considered more legally actionable. A
>> franker conversation would likely more clearly draw the line that
>> we're wrestling with here.
>>
>>
>> The reference to "integrity" was Bernhard's - quoting the PDB
>> mission statement; I just disagree with his interpretation of the
>> meaning. As far as 2hr0 is concerned, I think we're quite safe
>> calling it "fraudulent" at this point, since (ironically) Nature
>> itself has said as much:
>>
>> http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091222/full/462970a.html
>>
>> -Nat
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEARECAAYFAlN0V1UACgkQU5C0gGfAG124eQCffE9h2fdDDi2TDLSwr9DabrZI
GzoAn2QTo1/VTW8ZYSHCpcgCX+EHFv/q
=Ja+6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|