On 30 Apr 97 at 18:28, Bob Phair wrote:
> So my tentative diagnosis, subject to feedback from the newsgroup, is that
> MCA has not become a mainstream tool because you publish most of your best
> work in journals read only by other theoreticians.
If only this was true... Most of MCA papers were published in
European Journal of Biochemistry (36)
Biochemical Journal (32)
Journal of Theoretical Biology (21)
Biochimica & Biophysica Acta (19)
(the numbers in brackets are the occurences in my bibliographic database,
which even though not complete is not that far from it)
many discussions have also appeared in the past in TiBS and notably,
Kacser & Burns 1973 was published in the "Symposia for Experimental
Biology"!
So from all these sources only one is a theoretical journal. All the others
(including the top two) are mainly experimental journals. I may even
add that some of the editors of these journals sometimes try to refuse MCA
papers on the grounds that they are "too theoretical". We've had to battle
for their publication in the past.
But I agree with you that we have to continue to expose the mainly
experimental biochemists/biologists to MCA (or other theoretical analyses
for that matter).
Pedro Mendes Inst. Biological Sciences
prm at aber.ac.uk (home: pedro at enzyme.demon.co.uk) Univ. Wales, Aberystwyth,
http://gepasi.dbs.aber.ac.uk/pedro/prmhome.htm Ceredigion SY23 3DA, U.K.
http://gepasi.dbs.aber.ac.uk/softw/gepasi.html FAX: +44 (0)1970 622350
