Kay Hoffman writes:
>1. The first problem will be known to a big number of sequencing scientists:
>Suppose you published a sequence in a database as GENBANK or EMBL. I have
>the impression that one could as well publish it in a wastebasket unless
>you have an paper on this sequence published in a 'real' journal.
This is part of the general problem of getting the paper media to
acknowledge the electronic media, by appropriate citations. This would be
considerably helped if we could agree on an appropiate way of citating
an electronic publication. I have suggested that each day be considered to
constitute a "volume" and each second be considered a page. Thus this
communication is "Forsdyke, D. R. (1993) Bnet.jrnl.note 118, 1211est"
>But seriously, are there some guidelines of how to assure that authors
>1) have checked appropriate and current databases
>2) mention it if they found something
If they have not done this, then others may point it out in the letter
columns of the journal or (even) on this medium. This would be a valid
role for Bionet.Journals.Note.
>Since sequencing is becoming kind of trivial these days and many journals
>discourage publishing papers with focus on sequencing, publishing sequences
>in a database ought to be encouraged. But I will not be in favour of this
>approach as long as nobody feels the need of even mentioning your work.
The following quote from the Editor of DNA Sequence may assuage some of
"I detect an ignorance of how much information there may be
in a DNA sequence and possibly a prejudice against DNA
sequencing as being some kind of unintellectual pursuit.
Sequencing can be a long an onorous task, but the end result
of a carefully determined and carefully analysed sequence can
be a wealth of new information and insight." Bart Barrell
Sincerely, Don Forsdyke (Discussion Leader)