On 18 Oct 2012, at 21:30, Bosch, Juergen wrote: > Tassos, > > just to clarify what you are saying in the Journal with 2% deposition after > submission, 98% have been deposited prior to submission (the way it should > be). Is that what you are saying or am I reading that wrong ?
Yes, that is what I am saying! 2% is good, 50% is bad. (btw, the 'worse' is close to 70% - any guesses?) A. > Or are you saying only 2% of structures are deposited in that journal ? > > Jürgen > > On Oct 18, 2012, at 3:24 PM, Anastassis Perrakis wrote: > >> Just to add in the controversy, with a somewhat related issue: >> >> Current crystallographic ethic presumes that a structure is deposited just >> before >> the submission of the paper. In a survey we did, we found that while >> in one journal only 2% of structures are deposited after the paper >> submission date, >> on another thats 5%, on another one that is 29% and in yet another one close >> to 50%. >> >> The journals are Nature, Science, ActaD and Proteins in order of decreasing >> IF. >> Is there any correlation? >> >> To get some guesses first, Robbie can send the answer tomorrow at around >> noon >> (as I will be unavailable travelling ...) >> >> Tassos >> >> On 18 Oct 2012, at 21:13, Bernhard Rupp (Hofkristallrat a.D.) wrote: >> >>> Randy Read just pointed out to me that in their case-controlled analysis >>> paper >>> http://journals.iucr.org/d/issues/2009/02/00/ba5130/index.html >>> >>> when considering lower resolution and other factors, the vanity journals >>> seem to come out >>> no worse than the rest. >>> >>> In any case I suspect any retractions are underrepresented in those journals >>> because they fight it harder ;-) >>> >>> Best, BR >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Ethan >>> Merritt >>> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 11:11 AM >>> To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK >>> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] PNAS on fraud >>> >>> >>> Fang et al. claim that R^2 = 0.0866, which means that CC = 0.29. >>> While a correlation coefficient of less than 0.3 is not "a complete lack of >>> correlation", it's still rather weak. >>> >>> The "highly significant" must be taken in a purely statistical sense. >>> That is, it doesn't mean "the measures are highly correlated", it means "the >>> evidence for non-zero correlation is very strong". >>> >>> Ethan > > ...................... > Jürgen Bosch > Johns Hopkins University > Bloomberg School of Public Health > Department of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology > Johns Hopkins Malaria Research Institute > 615 North Wolfe Street, W8708 > Baltimore, MD 21205 > Office: +1-410-614-4742 > Lab: +1-410-614-4894 > Fax: +1-410-955-2926 > http://lupo.jhsph.edu > > > >
