Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!sci.ccny.cuny.edu!phri!roy From: roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Newsgroups: bionet.molbio.genbank Subject: Re: Quality of submitted data Message-ID: <1990Aug15.154712.14979@phri.nyu.edu> Date: 15 Aug 90 15:47:12 GMT References: <9008141623.AA00744@histone.lanl.gov.LANL.GOV> Sender: news@phri.nyu.edu (News System) Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City Lines: 21 kristoff@genbank.BIO.NET (David Kristofferson) writes: > The basic fact which has been brought up by journal editors repeatedly is > that the vast majority of reviewers who get a paper containing sequence > data in hardcopy are not going to take the time to enter the data into a > computer. Dave, You seem to be implying that this is the fault of the reviewers, that they are not taking the time to do their job properly (or are implying that the editors are implying that). Perhaps what journals should require is that any manuscript containing a non-trivial amount of sequence data be submitted along with N copies of a floppy disk (one for each reviewer) containing the sequence in machine readable form. Yes, I know that there are all sorts of media compatability problems, but I think you would be hard pressed to find a lab that couldn't read (or get read for them) a plain ascii file on a 720k DOS disk. -- Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy "Arcane? Did you say arcane? It wouldn't be Unix if it wasn't arcane!"