Re: [ccp4bb] nature cb3 response

- Protein crystallography

Main steps:

- Protein purification
- Crystallisation

Special:

- Programs for crystallography
- X-ray detectors

Basic tutorials:

   - Chemistry
   - Protein
   - Peptide
   - Amino Acids

Xtal community:

- CCP4BB

CCP4bb navigation

CCP4bb <-- 1999 <-- November 1999 <-- 30 November 1999

Previous message:
Subject: Re: nature cb3 response
From: price {- at -} UCHICAGO {- dot -} EDU price {- at -} UCHICAGO {- dot -} EDU
Date: 2007-08-16

Next message:
Subject: Re: The importance of USING our validation tools
From: William Scott wgscott {- at -} CHEMISTRY {- dot -} UCSC {- dot -} EDU
Date: 2007-08-16

Subject: Re: nature cb3 response
From: Bernhard Rupp bernhardrupp {- at -} SBCGLOBAL {- dot -} NET
Date: 2007-08-16

Nature DOES require availability of structure factors and coordinates as
a matter of policy, and also to make them available for review on demand.
If the reviewer does not want them, the editor can't do anything about.

One also cannot demand of a biologist reviewer to reconstruct
maps, but others long ago and I recently have suggested in nature to make
at least the RSCC mandatory reading for to reviewers - a picture
says more than words...

One way would be to carefully pair reviewers for crystallographic papers -
a competent biologist and a competent crystallographer.
Being not a famous biologist I am generally unimpressed by the
story, and unemotional about the crystallography. The biology reviewer
on the other hand could make the point how relevant and exciting
the structure and its biological implications are. The
proper pairing is something where I would lay the responsibility
heavy on the journal editors. That is just a matter of due diligence.

br

-----Original Message-----
From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of
price@UCHICAGO.EDU
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 5:10 PM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] nature cb3 response

A comment from my collaborator's student suggests a partial answer. This
afternoon he happened to say "but of course the reviewers will look at the
model, I just deposited it!". He was shocked to find that "hold for pub"
means that even reviewers can't access the data. Can that be changed? It
would take a bit of coordination between journals and the PDB, but I think
the student is right - it is rather shocking that the data is sitting there
nicely deposited but the reviewers can't review it.
Phoebe Rice

CCP4bb navigation

CCP4bb <-- 1999 <-- November 1999 <-- 30 November 1999

Previous message:
Subject: Re: nature cb3 response
From: price {- at -} UCHICAGO {- dot -} EDU price {- at -} UCHICAGO {- dot -} EDU
Date: 2007-08-16

Next message:
Subject: Re: The importance of USING our validation tools
From: William Scott wgscott {- at -} CHEMISTRY {- dot -} UCSC {- dot -} EDU
Date: 2007-08-16