On 01/21/2016 05:48 PM, Edward A. Berry wrote:
~~~~
Also, pubmed commons allows comments on the abstract page for every article.
Whenever you look up an article on pubmed, there is an invitation to
leave comments below, and if a comment is left it is prominently
displayed above the article like "See comment in PubMed Commons below"
For example
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7737189
This could also be used a warning to the unwary
that something may not be quite right -
if you are not afraid of being sued.
Now NCBI is discontinuing this capability due to lack of participation:
https://ncbiinsights.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2018/02/01/pubmed-commons-to-be-discontinued/
.
If you think it is a good service even though only a small percentage
of papers get any comments, you can say so by leaving a comment on that blog
post
(there are quite a few already).
eab
On 01/21/2016 03:19 PM, Bellini, Dom wrote:
Perhaps a temporary and quick solution could be to have an online spreadsheet
where every one could annotate erroneous structures when they encounter one
(writing down PDB code with a comment).
It wont solve publication-related issues but at least it would help people
working with PDB big data to filter out the ones on the list from their
databases.
I am taking bets on how long the list will be!
D
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* CCP4 bulletin board <CCP4BB@jiscmail.ac.uk> on behalf of Bernhard Rupp
<hofkristall...@gmail.com>
*Sent:* 21 January 2016 19:56
*To:* CCP4BB@jiscmail.ac.uk
*Subject:* Re: [ccp4bb] questionable structures
Simple statement: "The structure model is is almost certainly wrong (to the point
of 'beyond reasonable doubt') and it should not be in any data base."
How to handle the rest of the paper depends on the degree of inference based on
the flawed model. But I am not doing all the work for the editors ;-)
BR
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 8:40 PM, Keller, Jacob <kell...@janelia.hhmi.org
<mailto:kell...@janelia.hhmi.org>> wrote:
BR:____
__ __
Not clear what more you would have wanted to the editor to writewhats
missing?____
__ __
Or were you commenting on the lack of concrete actions?____
__ __
JPK____
__ __
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernhard Rupp (Hofkristallrat a. D)
001 (925) 209-7429
+43 (676) 571-0536
b...@ruppweb.org <mailto:b...@ruppweb.org>
hofkristall...@gmail.com <mailto:hofkristall...@gmail.com>
http://www.ruppweb.org/
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The hard part about playing chicken
is to know when to flinch
-----------------------------------------------------------------
