Dear Colleagues, Agreed! There is a wider point though which is that the 3D structure and data can form a potential for further analysis and thus the data and the structure can ideally be more than the current paper's contents. Obviously artificially high <I/ sig I > cut offs are both unfortunate for the current article and such future analyses. In chemical crystallography this potential for further analyses is widely recognised. Eg a crystal structure should have all static disorder sorted, methyl rotor groups correctly positioned etc even if not directly relevant to an article. Such rigour is the requirement for Acta Cryst C , for example, in chemical crystallography. Best wishes, John
Prof John R Helliwell DSc On 4 Mar 2011, at 20:36, Roberto Battistutta <roberto.battistu...@unipd.it> wrote: > Dear Phil, > I completely agree with you, your words seem to me the best > "philosophical" outcome of the discussion and indicate the right > perspective to tackle this topic. In particular you write "In the end, the > important question as ever is "does the experimental data support the > conclusions drawn from it?" and that will depend on local information > about particular atoms and groups, not on global indicators". Exactly, in > my case, all the discussion of the structures was absolutely "independent" > from having 1.9, 2.0 or 2.1 A nominal resolution, or to cut at 1.5 or 2.0 > or 3.0 I/sigma. This makes the unjustified (as this two-day discussion has > clearly pointed out) "technical" critics of the reviewer even more > upsetting. > Ciao, > Roberto
