> there is an error in your computation


No, the computation is correct. The model parametrization is oversimplified and

the input data are uncertain. Sort of the climate model of review.


Cheers, BR


From: Sanishvili, Ruslan <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 02:07
To: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press


Hi Bernhard,

While I do not disagree with anything you have said,. Your results are based on the assumption of a 40-hour work week and one-month vacation in a year.

I don't know about now but back then Russian scientists did not work like that. So, the final number of 1.5 ppr/hr realistically would be closer to 1 ppr/hr.




Ruslan Sanishvili (Nukri), Ph.D.
Macromolecular Crystallographer
X-ray Science Division, ANL
9700 S. Cass Ave.
Lemont, IL 60439

Tel: (630)252-0665
Fax: (630)252-0667
[log in to unmask]


From: CCP4 bulletin board <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Bernhard Rupp <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 4, 2018 1:30 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press


I was just fascinated by the math: 800 x 3 = 2400, and given a

work year of 1600 hrs this makes for 1.5 papers per hr to review…


I don’t remember a reference to anyone specific - YS had only about 2000 papers –

so maybe there are/were even more prolific candidates 😉


Best, BR


From: George Sheldrick <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 4, 2018 16:17
To: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press


Dear Bernhard,

I agree with you sentiments, but was wondering which 'poor Russian small molecule crystallographer' you had in mind?

Yuri Strutchkov died in 1995. He was an excellent crystallographer but with an efficient team and good connections.

I can't really complain, all the fake Chinese structures in Acta E cited SHELX for their refinement.

Best wishes, George


On 04.07.2018 13:54, Bernhard Rupp wrote:

Yes, there is a problem in general with these ‘get rich quick with user data’

facebookoid sites. Publon seems to be another one and I had what can be charitably described

as a pretty intense exchange with the dude running it. Nothing can be free (a concept occasionally alien

to the purist academic) and you just pay with whatever data that will be exploited as a business model.

That is fine as long as the model is transparent.


In response to an earlier post in this thread, complaining about review overload is perilous if you

expect to get your own stuff reviewed. If you publish 10 papers a year, on grounds of reciprocity you

should expect to review about 30. Almost one a week sans holidays…imagine the poor Russian small molecule

crystallographers on 800 papers a year…nothing beats monopolizing a resource (diffractometer etc…).

So, millennials, be thankful for the democratization of crystallography, compliment of the synchrotron

facilities and their diligent operators confined to the subterranean dungeons of beam line hell.




Best, BR


PS: Ad Elsevier: In an apparent acute attack of generosity, the Cell Press stuff can be shared

through links for 50 days.

I am responsible only for pushing the content, not for what happens with your data….

(at a second thought, don’t crystallographers also practically live to collect data?)


To help you access and share this work, we have created a Share Link – a personalized URL providing 50 days' free access to your article. Anyone clicking on this link before August 22, 2018 will be taken directly to the final version of your article on ScienceDirect. No sign up, registration or fees are required – they can simply click and read”


From: CCP4 bulletin board <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Patrick Shaw Stewart
Sent: Wednesday, July 4, 2018 12:59
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press



Bernhard, did you know that Researchgate is a controversial organization?  They have been criticised for encouraging users to upload copyrighted material, see below.  Their business model also seems to involve charging a high fee to spam their users - we tried it once but decided we were just annoying the scientists who happened to get our message.    (Although I agree with you that 10-yr-old articles are less valuable than recent ones.)


An interesting model for scientific publishing is the journal Biology Direct.  Reviewers' names and reports are published along with the article, and it's up to the authors to amend their article if they agree with any criticisms.  All you need is three reports for publication  I sent the journal what I believed to be a ground-breaking review explaining why we get more colds in winter than summer (later published in Medical Hypotheses).  I was disappointed that I only got one reviewer to support my article by writing a report.  But I felt that the format of the journal would have been be very helpful for a controversial topic.  Link below.





In September 2017, lawyers representing the International Association of Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers (STM) sent a letter to ResearchGate threatening legal action against them for copyright infringement and demanding them to alter their handling of uploaded articles to include pre-release checking for copyright violations and "Specifically, [for ResearchGate to] end its extraction of content from hosted articles and the modification of any hosted content, including any and all metadata. It would also mean an end to Researchgate's own copying and downloading of published journal article content and the creation of internal databases of articles."[40][41][42] This was followed by an announcement that takedown requests are to be issued to ResearchGate for copyright infringement relating to millions of articles.



Biology DIrect:   





My Article : )   



Criticism of Elsevier pricing.


In the 21st century, the subscription rates charged by the company for its journals have been criticized; some very large journals (with more than 5,000 articles) charge subscription prices as high as £9,634, far above average,[23] and many British universities pay more than a million pounds to Elsevier annually.[24] The company has been criticized not only by advocates of a switch to the open-access publication model, but also by universities whose library budgets make it difficult for them to afford current journal prices.

For example, a resolution by Stanford University's senate singled out Elsevier's journals as being "disproportionately expensive compared to their educational and research value", which librarians should consider dropping, and encouraged its faculty "not tocontribute articles or editorial or review efforts to publishers and journals that engage in exploitive or exorbitant pricing".[25] Similar guidelines and criticism of Elsevier's pricing policies have been passed by the University of California, Harvard University, and Duke University.[26]In July 2015, the Association of Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU) announced a plan to start boycotting Elsevier, which refused to negotiate on any Open Access policy for Dutch universities.[27] In December 2016, Nature Publishing Groupreported that academics in Germany, Peru and Taiwan are to lose access to Elsevier journals as negotiations had broken down with the publisher.[28]

A complaint about Elsevier/RELX was made to the Competition and Markets Authority.[29]









On 2 July 2018 at 08:01, George Sheldrick <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Since neither I nor my university can afford Elsevier journals, I have no access to papers published in them. In view of their excessive profits, for some years I have not submitted papers to them and have declined all requests to referee for them. If everyone did that, they might reconsider their approach. I am not an Apple fan either - I use a more reasonably priced native Linux laptop - but have to give Apple credit for innovation.


On 07/01/2018 06:57 PM, Patrick Loll wrote:


I think what we should do is not publish in journal families where the profit is above 10 per cent. Elsevier is the place to start as their profit margins are like those of Apple, and of competition there is none.


Elsevier: Like Apple, but without the design sense.



But seriously, Adrian makes an excellent point. And the large profit margins wouldn’t be quite so galling, if only the publishers were able to provide competent and helpful administrative support; but in my recent experience, not-for-profit scientific society journals are actually providing better experiences for reviewers and authors than the big commercial ones.




Patrick J. Loll, Ph. D.  

Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology

Drexel University College of Medicine

Room 10-102 New College Building

245 N. 15th St., Mailstop 497

Philadelphia, PA  19102-1192  USA


(215) 762-7706

[log in to unmask]

[log in to unmask]


To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:

Prof. George M. Sheldrick FRS
Dept. Structural Chemistry, 
University of Goettingen,
Tammannstr. 4,
D37077 Goettingen, Germany
Tel. +49-551-39-33021 or +49-5594-227312


To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:



 [log in to unmask]    Douglas Instruments Ltd.
 Douglas House, East Garston, Hungerford, Berkshire, RG17 7HD, UK
 Directors: Peter Baldock, Patrick Shaw Stewart
 Tel: 44 (0) 148-864-9090    US toll-free 1-877-225-2034
 Regd. England 2177994, VAT Reg. GB 480 7371 36


To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:


To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:


Prof. George M. Sheldrick FRS
Dept. Structural Chemistry
University of Goettingen
Tammannstr.  4
D37077 Goettingen
Tel: +49 551 3933021 or +49 5594 227312


To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:

To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link: