<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div><div>dear colleagues,<br><br></div>i would be interested
in experiences / suggestions / views of others in the field onĀ the
following issue that may be of interest to many of us:<br></div>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.<br>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: "<font size="2">Supporting data must be made available to editors and peer</font><font size="2">-</font><font size="2">reviewers at the time of</font><font size="2"> submission for the purposes of evaluating the manuscript.</font><font size="2"> Peer</font><font size="2">-</font><font size="2">reviewers</font><font size="2"> may be asked</font><font size="2"> to comment on the terms of access to materials, methods and/or data sets</font><font size="2">"</font>.<br></div>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.<br><br></div>Thanks <br><br></div>Friedrich<br clear="all"><div><br>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature">Dr. Friedrich Foerster<br>Max-Planck Institut fuer Biochemie<br>Am Klopferspitz 18<br>D-82152 Martinsried<br><br>Tel: +49 89 8578 2632<br>Fax: +49 89 8578 2641<br><br><a href="http://www.biochem.mpg.de/foerster" target="_blank">www.biochem.mpg.de/foerster</a><br></div>
<br>
</div></div>