Thanks a lot to everyone for their insightful comments I certainly had an interesting day trying to digest all that was said! Although my initial reaction to the request was to turn it down since I had never heard of such a request before, I decided in the end to accede to the request, since not doing so would imply that all reviewers are simply out there to get me. To quote one email that I received "Being paranoid is good, but you can't let it interfere with publishing"Š. Whilst on occasion this may be true, I would certainly hope it is not the norm.
Without going into detail here there are some unusual topological aspects about the structure that could justify requesting the coordinates, so hopefully whoever is receiving the file will just sit back and enjoy the structure as much as I did, and produce a better review in the end that could not have been produced without the access. Best wishes Marc On 19/04/12 7:25 PM, "Francois Berenger" <beren...@riken.jp> wrote: >Hi, > >There is the exact same problem when releasing a software, >possibly open source, before the corresponding article is accepted. > >And I don't know a correct solution to this problem. > >Regards, >F. > >On 04/19/2012 05:34 PM, Yu Wai Chen wrote: >> Dear Marc, >>> >>> As a reviewer I find it difficult to ³visualise² a structure based on >>> a static 2D figure. >>> >> I echo Joel's comments. If the (unreleased) coordinates are not >> supplied by the authors on request, I would simply refuse to review the >> paper on that ground. I suppose one can trust a reputable journal on >> the confidentiality issue. >> >> Wai >> >> -- >> Yu Wai Chen, PhD........................................Lecturer >> King's College London, Randall Division +44-207-848-8206 >> New Hunt's House, Guy's Campus, London SE1 1UL, U.K. >> >>
