CCL: W:Disclose your data, or not publish !

 Sent to CCL by: "Noko Phala" []
 Very fair point. On the other hand, is this not what the
 peer-reviewing/refereeing process is for? It is still puzzling that one finds,
 sometimes in reputable journals, work where it is not entirely clear what
 exactly was done to arrive at the results. Point taken, "Dr Bond".
 Noko Phala
 -----Original Message-----
 > From: []
 Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 10:33 AM
 To: Noko Phala
 Subject: CCL: W:Disclose your data, or not publish !
 Sent to CCL by: Alessandro Contini [alessandro.contini]~[]
 I agree with Dr. Gorelsky!
 the points evidenced by "Dr. Bond" could be right, I guess he/she just
 got burned by some unreproducible results (and I think that not only the
 field of theoretical/medicinal chemistry lets you experience such
 emotion...) and aims to a return of morals in science. However, for
 honesty, when such charges are made they should be signed by a real
 Alessandro Contini
 Il giorno mer, 14/09/2005 alle 23.30 -0700, CCL ha scritto:
 > Sent to CCL by: "S.I.Gorelsky" []
 > I wonder since when has CCL started to accept anonymous
 > submissions ? (I am not mad enough to assume that there is an actual
 > person, Chemical Bond)
 > When someone is screaming about disclosing all the data and making
 > accusations, he/she should, in the first place, have enough character to
 > disclose his/her actual name instead of hiding
 > under the made-up name from Yahoo.
 > May I suggest that such e-mail should not be distributed by CCL.
 > S.Gorelsky
 > P.S. I am not in business of doing any protein-ligand docking & scoring
 > studies.
 > On Wed, 14 Sep 2005, CCL wrote:
 > >
 > > Sent to CCL by: "Chemical  Bond"
 > > Everyday, tons of new publications come out.
 > >
 > > Although there are some nice papers with novel ideas or new results,
 many times we see people are almost trying to repeat others' work, pouring the
 same water into the old bottle.  The only goal for that seems to be just
 publishing, for tenure in academia or for promotion in industry, or for boasting
 some software!
 > >
 > > One obvious case is in the community of protein-ligand docking &
 scoring.  Are not we tired of those studies?
 > >
 > > Yes, we are!  We always see extremely excellent results published in
 papers or ACS talks by different kinds of people, especially those who made
 software and make money!
 > >
 > > The reality is that none of them really works!  Not at all!  Ask
 anyone in a big pharma doing docking & scoring business, see what you would
 get the performance for a scoring function applied in a real drug design case?
 > >
 > > That's all about business, to keep software company making money and
 keep computational chemists' in jobs.
 > >
 > > Fine, but in order to promote the advancement of science, we had
 better do something novel than that.  I hope people in this list could make more
 suggestions, and here I like to propose a little to the community:
 > >
 > > To disclose your data, or not publish.
 > >
 > > (1)Disclose all numerical data files, input, output files &
 parameters in the publication (paper or talk), in the sense that at least it
 could be reproduced (statistically meaningful) if anyone else is trying to do it
 using the same software or method.  So no one can be lying any more.
 > >
 > > (2)This could save much time for many other researchers on preparing
 testing data, so that new ideas could get tested & improved very quickly;
 > >
 > > (3)This could help build a very rich resource for research, things
 like docking decoys for many many protein targets and ligands; the data itself
 would be worth a million dollars ?!
 > >
 > > .. ...
 > >
 > > All in all, theose really good methods or software will survive
 without questions, and new technologies would evolve in the speed-of-light, we
 would see fewer but more meaningful new papers every day, what a relif from tons
 of new electronic papers... ... so that in the end science would get advanced by
 taking advantage of everyone's strength, and life could be improved in a
 different way......
 > >
 > > Thanks for your attention!
 > > -Bond>
 > >
 > >
 > ----------------------------------------------------------------
 >  Dr S.I. Gorelsky, Department of Chemistry, Stanford University
 >  Box 155, 333 Campus Drive, Stanford, CA 94305-5080 USA
 >  Phone: (650) 723-0041. Fax: (650) 723-0852.
 > ---------------------------------------------------------------->
 Alessandro Contini, Ph.D.
 Istituto di Chimica Organica "Alessandro Marchesini"
 Università  degli Studi di Milano, Facoltà  di Farmacia
 Via Venezian, 21 20133 Milano
 Tel. +390250314480 Fax. +390250314476