Hey Tommi, I am under the impression that Zbyszek Otwinowski has looked in depth at all of the structures that have now been retracted and has prepared a long manuscript detailing the evidence for fabrication and falsification. As far as I know, this manuscript hasn't been published yet (shame!), but it's bound to come out soon. Keep you patience just a little longer.
Andreas On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Tommi Kajander <tommi.kajan...@helsinki.fi> wrote: > Would the exact analysis of how each of these things were wrong and > fabricated be somewhere > available???? Would be fair (apart from the known case of C3b) to have the > whole analysis available > instead of just this kind of news feed. I suspect its not obvious by five > minute check in all cases. > > Perhaps there needs to be ways within PDB in form of automated tools that > would raise those red > flags in suspicious cases (e.g. some data analysis --such as the > contribution by solvent etc now that data beyond 8Å > is by default used in refinement) - as it appears peer review/editing by > journals isn't/cant always be(?) stringent enough. > > In any case, some type of automated analysis of the whole data base might > be a good idea, as there can be > other cases (with another couple of thousand papers citing them..). > > tommi > > On Dec 10, 2009, at 4:16 PM, Ibrahim Moustafa wrote: > >> "After a thorough examination of the available data, which included a >> re-analysis of each structure alleged to have been fabricated, the >> committee >> found a preponderance of evidence that structures 1BEF, 1CMW, 1DF9/2QID, >> 1G40, 1G44, 1L6L, 2OU1, 1RID, 1Y8E, 2A01, and 2HR0 were more likely than >> not >> falsified and/or fabricated and recommended that they be removed from the >> public record," the university said in its statement this week." >
