<div dir="ltr">On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 3:55 AM, MARTYN SYMMONS <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:martainn_oshiomains@btinternet.com" target="_blank">martainn_oshiomains@btinternet.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div style="font-size:10pt;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">
<div><span style="background-color:transparent">I guess one stumbling block is authors worried that people will second guess their space group assignment - but what you suggest is a good compromise on the road to full deposition of raw data.</span></div>
</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I doubt that's really an issue; for as long as authors have been required to deposit (merged) structure factors, there has always been the possibility that everyone else can second-guess some of the details of their structure. �In fact, one of my colleagues wrote an entire paper on incorrect space group assignments:</div>
<div><br></div><div><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20445225" target="_blank">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20445225</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>And of course we have the multiple retractions that could not have happened without access to the data; it is generally agreed that this is a good thing. �Most of us instinctively appreciate that if our data can't endure detailed inspection by random colleagues, they probably shouldn't be published anyway.</div>
<div><br></div><div>The bigger problem, right now, is that PDB deposition is still an unpleasant experience and there is no standard mechanism for including unmerged data.</div><div><br></div><div>-Nat</div></div></div></div>