Dear Mark, And of course this one is topical:- http://publicationethics.org/case/lost-raw-data
Best wishes, John Prof John R Helliwell DSc FInstP CPhys FRSC CChem F Soc Biol. Chair School of Chemistry, University of Manchester, Athena Swan Team. http://www.chemistry.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/athena/index.html On 27 Apr 2012, at 11:40, Mark J van Raaij <mjvanra...@cnb.csic.es> wrote: > have a look at this case, no danger of your coordinates going to anyone but > yourself if you do it this way: > http://publicationethics.org/case/author-creates-bogus-email-accounts-proposed-reviewers > > > On 26 Apr 2012, at 12:02, Jrh wrote: > >> Dear Colleagues, >> I have followed this thread with great interest. It reminds me of the Open >> Commission Meeting of the Biological Macromolecules Commission in Geneva in >> 2002 at the IUCr Congress. Ie at which it was concluded that protein >> coordinates and diffraction data would not be provided to referees. >> >> The ethics and rights of readers, authors and referees is a balancing act, >> as Jeremy and others have emphasised these different constituency's views. >> >> The aim of this email though is to draw your attention to the Committee on >> Publication Ethics (COPE) work and case studies, which are extensive. Ie >> see:- >> >> http://publicationethics.org/ >> >> The COPE Forum will also provide advice on case submissions that are made of >> alleged publication malpractice, various of which are quite subtle. The >> processes as well though following on from obvious malpractice eg how a >> university research malpractice committee can be convened are also detailed. >> >> Greetings, >> John >> >> Prof John R Helliwell DSc >> >> >> >> On 26 Apr 2012, at 06:10, Jeremy Tame <jt...@tsurumi.yokohama-cu.ac.jp> >> wrote: >> >>> The problem is it is not the PI who is jumping, it may be a postdoc he/she >>> is throwing. >>> >>> Priority makes careers (look back at the Lavoisier/Priestly, >>> Adams/LeVerrier or >>> Cope/Marsh controversies), and the history of scientific reviewing is not >>> all edifying. >>> >>> Too many checks, not enough balances. Science is probably better served if >>> the >>> author can publish without passing on the pdb model to a potentially >>> unscrupulous >>> reviewer, and if there are minor errors in the published paper then a >>> competing >>> group also has reason to publish its own view. The errors already have to >>> evade the >>> excellent validation tools we now have thanks to so many talented >>> programmers, >>> and proper figures and tables (plus validation report) should be enough for >>> a review. >>> The picture we have of haemoglobin is now much more accurate than the ones >>> which came out decades ago, but those structures were very useful in the >>> mean >>> time. A requirement of resolution better than 2 Angstroms would probably >>> stop poor >>> models entering PDB, but I don't think it would serve science as a whole. >>> Science >>> is generally a self-correcting process, rather than a demand for perfection >>> in every >>> paper. Computer software follows a similar pattern - bug reports don't >>> always invalidate the >>> program. >>> >>> I have happily released data and coordinates via PDB before publication, >>> even back in the >>> 1990s when this was unfashionable, but would not do so if I felt it risked >>> a postdoc >>> failing to publish a key paper before competitors. It might be helpful if >>> journals were >>> more amenable to new structures of "solved" proteins as the biology often >>> emerges >>> from several models of different conformations or ligation states. But in a >>> "publish or >>> perish" world, authors need rights too. Reviewers do a necessary job, but >>> there is a >>> need for balance. >>> >>> The attached figure shows a French view of Le Verrier discovering Uranus, >>> while >>> Adams uses his telescope for a quite different purpose. >>> >>> <Adams_Leverrier.jpg> >>> >>> >>> On Apr 26, 2012, at 2:01 AM, Ethan Merritt wrote: >>> >>>> On Wednesday, April 25, 2012 09:40:01 am James Holton wrote: >>>> >>>>> If you want to make a big splash, then don't complain about >>>>> being asked to leap from a great height. >>>> >>>> >>>> This gets my vote as the best science-related quote of the year. >>>> >>>> Ethan >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Ethan A Merritt >>>> Biomolecular Structure Center, K-428 Health Sciences Bldg >>>> University of Washington, Seattle 98195-7742 >>>
