Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!uunet!bionet!rutgers!netnews.upenn.edu!jes From: jes@mbio.med.upenn.edu (Joe Smith) Newsgroups: bionet.molbio.genbank Subject: Re: Quality of submitted data Message-ID: Date: 14 Aug 90 21:30:34 GMT References: <9008141623.AA00744@histone.lanl.gov.LANL.GOV> Sender: news@netnews.upenn.edu Organization: University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA Lines: 37 In-reply-to: pgil%histone@LANL.GOV's message of 14 Aug 90 16:23:26 GMT Thanks for the information. If I can summarize what you're saying (in a biased sort of way): There are no requirements WRT sequence data quality except as may be required for paper publication, and even that is becoming less applicable since the database(s) are now the first place a sequence appears. If this is accurate, I worry that it may encourage the 'publication' of sequence data 'before its time'. For example - a group submits its sequence as soon as they finish one complete strand (with the expectation of submitting changes later), a competing group waits until they finish both strands with at least two readings at each base. This could delay their submission significantly compared to the other group. I'm not suggesting that this is actually happening, only that the current policy seems to encourage it. As 'publication' of sequence data shifts toward the databases (at least the initial publication), the enticement will become greater. Maybe there needs to be some clear policy on this or some clear indication in the submitted data as to its quality. We already do this (subjectively) to some extent with published articles based on the editorial standards of the journal in which they're published. A related question: I just noticed that a sequence we work with has had changes made in newer releases of the DB. Is there an easy way to check for this when you're working with a private copy of the entry, excerpted from the main database? It's trivial when you have one or two sequences to maintain, but not if you have a whole family.