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

[Stefan Bohn]

Hi,

regarding double-blind review process:

The community is expanding at great speed. I can not follow the
argumentation, that just because we can search for scientists and their
equipment online, we shouldnt have double-blind. Sure, often enough the
experienced reviewer will be able to make the right guess - but it will
remain a guess.

Equipment: right now microscopes and awesome cameras are popping up
everywhere - and often times these are shared among groups making it more
difficult even to guess the names of all people involved, including their
order, etc...

Isn't double-blind a step forward? Why does a reviewer need to know the
names of the authors? I never understood this, I find it distracting from
the core idea of scientific evaluation. The work is supposed to be the
center, not the names. Anonymity is not guaranteed, clearly - but is that
the only reason to abolish double-blind?

In an ideal world, we wouldnt need to think about this, as we would
disregard the name and fame involved. But I agree with Sjors, that having
the name of the reviewer public, may bias their review - consciously or
unkowingly.

What other caveats of double-blind could there be (besides having the
trouble to search online)?

Best,
Stefan.
On May 2, 2015 7:02 AM, "Edward Egelman" <egelman at virginia.edu> wrote:

> Hi,
>   Thanks for pointing this out, since the submission date to these
> archives (EMDB and PDB) is quite clear. They already have a strict policy:
> no one has access prior to release!
> Regards,
> Ed
>
> On 5/2/15 9:57 AM, Hongwei Wang wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I strongly support the openness of science as suggested by Ed, Eva, Gab,
>> Sjors and many others on the mail list. I totally agree that having direct
>> assessment of the 3D map and models and even a few raw micrographs by the
>> reviewers will only make the story more solid. The ultimate publication
>> will
>> also benefit from this for test in the future.
>>
>> I would like to propose, for the worrisome of competition, that the
>> community takes account of the map or model's valid deposition date on the
>> databank server as a criteria to evaluate the novelty and originality of
>> the
>> work besides the paper's publishing date (receiving date and accepted date
>> too). Of course, the databank server will need to set clear and strict
>> rules
>> on the validity of the deposition and probably set some new policy on who
>> may access the deposited map or models before final release. Grant's
>> bioarxiv idea may serve similar function as well.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Hongwei
>>
>>  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
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 3dem mailing list
>>> 3dem at ncmir.ucsd.edu
>>> https://mail.ncmir.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/3dem
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Sjors Scheres
>> MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology
>> Francis Crick Avenue, Cambridge Biomedical Campus Cambridge CB2 0QH, U.K.
>> tel: +44 (0)1223 267061
>> http://www2.mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk/groups/scheres
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 3dem mailing list
>> 3dem at ncmir.ucsd.edu
>> https://mail.ncmir.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/3dem
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 3dem mailing list
>> 3dem at ncmir.ucsd.edu
>> 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
> 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/20150502/96aece47/attachment-0001.html>