> what if the reviewer has no clue of these things we call structures ? I think > for those people table 1 might still provide some justification.
Someone who knows little about structures probably won’t appreciate the technical details in Table 1 either .... J rgen Sent from my iPad On Aug 28, 2013, at 5:58, "Bernhard Rupp" <hofkristall...@gmail.com> wrote: >> We don't currently have a really good measure of that point where >> adding > the extra shell of data adds "significant" information >> so it probably isn't something to agonise over too much. K & D's >> paired > refinement may be useful though. > > That seems to be a correct assessment of the situation and a forceful > argument to eliminate the review nonsense of nitpicking on <I/sigI> > values, associated R-merges, and other pseudo-statistics once and for > good. We can now, thanks to data deposition, at any time generate or > download the maps and the models and judge for ourselves even minute > details of local model quality from there. > As far as use and interpretation goes, when the model meets the map is > where the rubber meets the road. > I therefore make the heretic statement that the entire table 1 of data > collection statistics, justifiable in pre-deposition times as some > means to guess structure quality can go the way of X-ray film and be > almost always eliminated from papers. > There is nothing really useful in Table 1, and all its data items and > more are in the PDB header anyhow. > Availability of maps for review and for users is the key point. > > Cheers, BR
