*** For details on how to be removed from this list visit the *** *** CCP4 home page http://www.ccp4.ac.uk ***
Isn't this a matter where we should work through the Publications Committees of the professional societies like the IUCr, ACA, etc.? They played a key role in setting policy on coordinate deposition, and the journals should listen to them whenever they speak on scholarly standards for presentation of results. Joe Becker Merck Research Laboratories Rahway NJ -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Savvas Savvides Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 5:07 AM To: Ethan Merritt Cc: CCP4 Bulletin Board Subject: Re: [ccp4bb]: Use of 'online supplementary material' *** For details on how to be removed from this list visit the *** *** CCP4 home page http://www.ccp4.ac.uk *** Dear colleagues, I could not agree more about the need to upgrade the quality control process relating to online supplementary material. That would indeed be a prerequisite for what I suggested. Admittedly, I am also intrigued when journals declare that they do not edit supplementary materials, while in some cases almost half of the paper can be found in the online supplementary sections! Nonetheless, I have recently had papers for which the reviewers commented with equal rigor both on the main text and the supplentary sections. I do the same when I review manuscripts. So in the end it may come down to good reviewing practices. I think we have a consensus that both NCS journals (Nature, Cell, Science) and non-NCS journals in general discourage the kind of material I proposed in my original message from appearing in the main body of a paper. Interestingly, we often use such information in our rebuttal letters to defend our manuscripts but this material very rarely makes it to the printed article. Space restraints have primarily been the reason for this selection, but the potential of deviating from the biological message of the paper also plays a big role. However, the means to expand publication space are now becoming available, and that may well be a realistic option to alleviate some of the frustrations that we are faced with both when reading a paper with minimal crystallographic information and when we write it ourselves. with best regards, Savvas Quoting Ethan Merritt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > *** For details on how to be removed from this list visit the *** > *** CCP4 home page http://www.ccp4.ac.uk *** > > > On Monday 17 April 2006 03:39 pm, afyfe wrote: > > > > >Indeed. I think the concept of online supplementary material > > >should be quashed as quickly and thoroughly as possible. > > >Not that I have much hope of convincing the journals.... > > > > > > > > Perhaps the "un-reviewed, un-indexed, and un-citable sections of a > > research paper" are not of general interest. However, they may well > > be invaluable to anyone attempting to build on the results presented. > > Yes, that is the whole point. These potentially invaluable details > should be subjected to the same level of scrutiny during the review > process as the main text, and should be just as findable through > citation searches as the main text, and should be just as diligent in > making citations of their own as the main text. > > > As a grad student who wastes a frustrating amount of time trying to > > track down structure factor data, program sources, refinement conditions, etc. > > I can only hope the liberal use of "supplementary materials" gains > > more acceptance over time. > > Let us suppose, for example, that you were interested in tracking down > recent structure determinations which have benefited from crystal > dehydration. In the "old days", armed with a list of key papers that > introduced the technique, you could do this by searching for recent > papers that cited the seminal papers. > You can't do that any more, because such details are relegated to the > supplemental material, where they may or may not cite the original > literature. And even if the supplementary material itself does > contain such citations, these are not harvested by the bibliographic > indexing services so you cannot find them from the outside. > > Do you see the problem? The information you say want is exactly the > information that has become hard to find because it has been relegated > to second-class status. > > -- > Ethan A Merritt > Biomolecular Structure Center > University of Washington, Seattle WA > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Notice: This e-mail message, together with any attachments, contains information of Merck & Co., Inc. (One Merck Drive, Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, USA 08889), and/or its affiliates (which may be known outside the United States as Merck Frosst, Merck Sharp & Dohme or MSD and in Japan, as Banyu) that may be confidential, proprietary copyrighted and/or legally privileged. It is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named on this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete it from your system. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
