Moreover, PDB does not need even to store the raw data, just validate their consistency with the scaled structural factors and then trash them.
On Apr 3, 2012, at 10:44 AM, aaleshin wrote: > Hi James, > My previous message on this matter remains unnoticed, but I also suggested a > very simple solution to the data fraud: the crystallographers should submit > to PDB partially processed data, like unmerged partial reflections. These > files are much smaller than the images, and only a few people in the world > are capable to forge them. This simple solution would kill any attempt to > fabricate crystallographic data. > > Alex > > > On Apr 3, 2012, at 7:11 AM, James Whisstock wrote: > >> Hi >> >> I was thinking about the last statement in the Acta editorial - "It is >> important to note, however, that in neither of these cases was a single >> frame of data collected. Not one.". This brought me back to the images.. >> >> To date there is no "global" acceptance that original diffractiom images >> must be deposited (though I personally think there should be). Many of the >> arguments around this issue relate to the time and space required to house >> such data. However (and apologies if this has already been raised and I >> have missed it), if our sole intent is to ascertain that there's no trouble >> at t'mill then deposition of a modest wedge of data and / or a 0 and 90, >> while not ideal, may be sufficient to provide a decent additional check and >> balance, particularly if such images, headers etc were automatically >> analysed as part of the already excellent validation tools in development. >> >> I'm sure there are a number of clever ways (that could be unadvertised or >> kept confidential to the pdb) that could be used to check off sufficient >> variables within such data such that it should (?) be very difficult to >> falsify images without triggering alarm bells. >> >> Of course this would probably then drive those that are truly bonkers to >> attempt to fabricate realistically noisy false diffraction images, however I >> would hope that such a scheme might make things just a little more difficult >> for those with fraudulent intent, particularly if no one (apart from the >> developers) knows precisely how and what the checking software checks! >> >> While it seems sad that it's come to this cell biologists and biochemists >> have had to deal with more and more sophisticated versions of the >> "photoshopped western" for years. Accordingly, most high profile journals >> run figures through commercial software that does a reasonable job of >> detection of such issues. >> >> J >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 03/04/2012, at 11:10 PM, Dyda <d...@ulti.niddk.nih.gov> wrote: >> >>> I think that to review a paper containing a structure derived from >>> crystallographic data should indeed involve the referee having access >>> to coordinates and to the electron density. Without this access it >>> is not possible to judge the quality and very often even the >>> soundness of statements in the paper. >>> >>> I think the argument that this may give a competitive advantage >>> to the referee who him or herself maybe working on the same thing >>> should be mute, as I thought article refereeing was supposed to >>> be a confidential process. Breaching this would be a serious >>> ethical violation. In my experience, before agreeing to review, >>> we see the abstract, I was always thought that I was supposed to >>> decline if there is a potential conflict with my own work. >>> Perhaps naively, but I always assumed that everyone acts like this. >>> >>> Unfortunately however, there is another serious issue. >>> >>> After a very troubling experience with a paper I reviewed, I discussed >>> this issue with journal editors. What they said was that they already >>> have a hell of time to find people who agree to referee, by raising the >>> task level (asking refs to look at coords and density) they feared >>> that no one would agree. Actually, perhaps many have noticed the >>> large number of 5 liner referee reports saying really not much about a >>> full length research article. People simply don't have the time to >>> put the effort in. So I am not sure how realistic is to ask even more, >>> for something that at some level, is pro bono work. >>> >>> >>> Fred >>> [32m******************************************************************************* >>> Fred Dyda, Ph.D. Phone:301-402-4496 >>> Laboratory of Molecular Biology Fax: 301-496-0201 >>> DHHS/NIH/NIDDK e-mail:fred.d...@nih.gov >>> Bldg. 5. Room 303 >>> Bethesda, MD 20892-0560 URGENT message e-mail: 2022476...@mms.att.net >>> Google maps coords: 39.000597, -77.102102 >>> http://www2.niddk.nih.gov/NIDDKLabs/IntramuralFaculty/DydaFred >>> *******************************************************************************[m >> >
