It's fun to watch my innocent little comment unfold into a pandemonium of email :) That's why i love this mailing list.
Seriously though, there seems to be two salient things said by many people in many different ways: 1. it's a good idea to look at the model in detail, and pay attention to structure-based warnings rather than purely number-based ones. Pretty straightforward. 2. there is a huge gap between the reality of academic peer-review process and the (not so silent) desires of the crystallographic community. Not a surprise either. Thank goodness I am in industry. We get 'laid off' a lot (a well recognized occupational hazard) but at least we don't live & die by our publication records. Artem
