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

Sat May 2 09:45:20 PDT 2015

Hi,

a double-blind request does not mean one suddenly has to put effort in
order to stay anonymous. Just keep writing as before. We know this process
is not guaranteeing anonymity - but it gives more than before, no?

Conflicts of interest dont play a role anymore, if one doesnt know, who is
involved, right? And if one has a suspicion, one can let the editor know
and make him double-check... In a double-blind more responsibility may go
to the editors et al.

"As previously described", followed by a citation certainly gives another
clue. But then again, it could be misleading. One doesnt know, no?

I agree, a double-blind process is not perfect. But why serving reviewers
the exact names, their order and all?

Best,
Stefan.
On May 2, 2015 8:44 AM, "Edward Egelman" <egelman at virginia.edu> wrote:

>  Hi,
>   The first problem is that authors need to invest great effort to
> "anonymize" their paper. There can be no obvious citations to their own
> work. Given that most of our work is part of long-term interest in
> particular projects, this is not simple. Consider the Methods section,
> where one cannot say that a sample was prepared as previously described. So
> one writes a detailed methods description, but it would be obvious that
> this is the same as in another publication. For a field as small as
> cryo-EM, most of us would be able to correctly guess the origin of a paper.
> So why then pretend that it is blind, when the authors will be known? It
> also becomes impossible to establish conflicts of interest. I have declined
> to review papers since I have recently collaborated with the authors, etc.
> If the authors are not known, then these conflicts will not be resolved.
> Regards,
> Ed
>
> On 5/2/15 11:29 AM, Stefan Bohn wrote:
>
> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 3dem mailing list3dem at ncmir.ucsd.eduhttps://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: 434-924-5069egelman at virginia.eduhttp://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/d40ae585/attachment.html>