[3dem] sharing em maps during peer-review process

[Mike Strauss]

Hi,

Unlike Ed, I do understand the basis for the paranoia, but I do not see a sensible way around it.  Our system is currently based on anonymous peer review, be that good or ill.  As such, if we expect thorough, honest, accurate, and ultimately helpful reviews, it only makes sense that the reviewer can look at the maps to assess the claims made, and to suss out potential errors in processing or methodology.  Ultimately they will have to be deposited regardless.  I don’t see how you can avoid trusting the reviewers to behave honourably.

Having said that, perhaps we should consider implementing a system where reviewers are de-anonymised in the event of a controversy (ie. your paper is scooped after a 4 month review process).

mike

> On Apr 30, 2015, at 5:01 PM, Edward Egelman <egelman at virginia.edu> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
>   First, let me say that I was not the reviewer! Second, I recently spoke at an NIH workshop on reproducibility in structural biology:
> http://wals.od.nih.gov/reproducibility/ <http://wals.od.nih.gov/reproducibility/>
> and making maps and models available to reviewers BEFORE publication, and not AFTER, was one of my recommendations. I gave several examples of papers in high profile journals that would never have been published had reviewers actually compared the maps and models during review. I do not understand the basis for the paranoia.
> Regards,
> Ed
> 
> On 4/30/15 4:19 PM, Friedrich Foerster wrote:
>> dear colleagues,
>> 
>> i would be interested in experiences / suggestions / views of others in the field on  the following issue that may be of interest to many of us:
>> the editor of our manuscript forwarded the request of a peer-reviewer to access the cryo-em map of our beloved complex. this has never happened to us, but to our surprise the editor did not consider the request to be unusual.
>> of course, we share the point that the map would be of great help in judging the interpretation of the data. however, we also feel very uncomfortable sending the condensed result of lengthy research to an anonymous colleague, who could theoretically make considerable misuse of it. nevertheless, the policy of the journal seems to let us little choice: "Supporting data must be made available to editors and peer-reviewers at the time of submission for the purposes of evaluating the manuscript. Peer-reviewers may be asked to comment on the terms of access to materials, methods and/or data sets".
>> in any case we would be curious whether others indeed got similar requests and how they dealt with it. a good solution for (paranoid?) people like us could be a good web-based viewer that lets others view our map, but i would not know of such a tool.
>> 
>> Thanks 
>> 
>> Friedrich
>> 
>> -- 
>> Dr. Friedrich Foerster
>> Max-Planck Institut fuer Biochemie
>> Am Klopferspitz 18
>> D-82152 Martinsried
>> 
>> Tel: +49 89 8578 2632
>> Fax: +49 89 8578 2641
>> 
>> www.biochem.mpg.de/foerster <http://www.biochem.mpg.de/foerster>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 3dem mailing list
>> 3dem at ncmir.ucsd.edu <mailto:3dem at ncmir.ucsd.edu>
>> https://mail.ncmir.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/3dem <https://mail.ncmir.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/3dem>
> 
> -- 
> Edward H. Egelman, Ph.D.
> Professor
> Dept. of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics
> University of Virginia
> 
> President
> Biophysical Society
> 
> phone: 434-924-8210
> fax: 434-924-5069
> egelman at virginia.edu <mailto:egelman at virginia.edu>
> http://www.people.virginia.edu/~ehe2n <http://www.people.virginia.edu/~ehe2n>
> _______________________________________________
> 3dem mailing list
> 3dem at ncmir.ucsd.edu
> https://mail.ncmir.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/3dem

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ncmir.ucsd.edu/pipermail/3dem/attachments/20150430/2c1c3dab/attachment-0001.html>