From a statistical point of view, there could be a rare bad apple reviewer
as well as a rare bad apple (fraud intending) author. Life is inherently
risky
but we still cross streets.
More important, science is based on accessibility of primary data
and reproducibility of results. Without primary
A number of years ago - we were asked to setup an ftp site a particular
reviewer could see the coordinates... I could have looked at the logs to
figure out where they were coming in from but chose not to. Some
journals also allow the author to upload additional info - that would be
available
After a thorough examination of the available data, which included a
re-analysis of each structure alleged to have been fabricated, the
committee
found a preponderance of evidence that structures 1BEF, 1CMW,
1DF9/2QID,
1G40, 1G44, 1L6L, 2OU1, 1RID, 1Y8E, 2A01, and 2HR0 were more likely
than
Matthew Franklin wrote:
Once again, I'd like to get the community's thoughts: should we ask the PDB to
stop using 0 and 1 in its IDs?
I'll get off the soapbox now.
I would be all for it... Having tried to downloade 1o08 and gotten it
screwed up Especially when journals use a
