| 1 | Mar 20, 2011 4:55 PM | To be honest, reviewing Acta Cryst E became unenjoyable many years ago because of the preponderance of poorly constructed papers (incomprehensible language, bad (almost subversively so) structure determinations). |
| 2 | Mar 17, 2011 8:13 PM | 1. Direct access, via index, of previous submissions.
2. Address book of world crystallographers. (Would be useful to click on a name to choose a referee.)
3. Responses from authors go directly to my university email rather than through a Acta Cryst server. It would be more efficient to handle all email through an AC server. |
| 3 | Mar 17, 2011 1:13 PM | An option to Reject the article and transfer it to, for example, from Acta Cryst C to Acta Cryst E on the authours behalf. At this stage, as I understand it, one can only reject the article and request that the authors resubmit. |
| 4 | Mar 16, 2011 12:53 PM | The final refinement file could be included in the submission. That would save time and likely improve the attention paid to the refinement process by many authors. |
| 5 | Mar 15, 2011 2:45 PM | no |
| 6 | Mar 15, 2011 8:58 AM | OK |
| 7 | Mar 15, 2011 5:49 AM | I think getting authors to suggest a couple of potential referees is most useful. |
| 8 | Mar 14, 2011 11:32 PM | The distinction between Acta C & Acta E needs clarification; I suggest Peer review/Co-editor sample sets should be available illustrating the categories: reject completely, reject but accept a new revised submission after major rewrite/reanalysis/refinement, Major revision, minor revision, acceptance as is. I am presenting a paper on this at the SCANZ 2011 meeting in NZ. |
| 9 | Mar 14, 2011 11:26 PM | I am learning to like this. A valuable feature is that correspondence can be stored on your server in Cheshire (just lost some of my own records because of hard disk failure!) |
| 10 | Mar 14, 2011 7:01 PM | No |
| 11 | Mar 14, 2011 6:09 PM | Sometimes is generated the Alert A because the authors have omitted to upload the corresponding fcf-file. I think that they can be informed automatically via e-mail about such a problem.
Sometimes the warnings are misleading: It rerers for example to the short O-H...O hydrogen bonds where the H atoms is moved towards the centre between the oxygens.
There are so many alerts that they are being ignored. |
| 12 | Mar 14, 2011 4:38 PM | 1- (In the case of Acta E): After submission, authors sometimes update the files before the review has been completed, for ex. because they realize that one figure was wrong. It would be better to prevent such "dynamic" submissions.
2- For previously rejected papers, a short notice on why the submission was rejected would greatly help.
3- Force authors to include the e-mails of ALL authors. |
| 13 | Mar 14, 2011 4:02 PM | - in some cases, it would be useful to have access to the RES file, to see all the constraints/restraints applied in the refinement.
- highlighting cif changes on author's pages
- twinning treatment, i.e. special CIF keywords for twinning matrices and twin fractions, overlap flags in FoFc file |
| 14 | Mar 14, 2011 3:58 PM | Several authors have submitted to me papers with entire sections, for example, refinement, experimental and comment, missing from their CIF. I don't know why the submission system allows such CIFs to pass. Many authors are unaware of the need to press "revision complete" when they have uploaded new files. |
| 15 | Mar 14, 2011 3:54 PM | no |
| 16 | Mar 14, 2011 3:46 PM | get the submitted figures in the zip-file instead of having them to dowload separately |
| 17 | Mar 14, 2011 3:20 PM | Nothing that is politically correct to have recorded |
| 18 | Mar 14, 2011 2:27 PM | flags to alert author and reviewer of e.g absolute structure, disorder, Z' >1 or < 1, in the submitted structure that need to be mentioned in the abstract
sometimes regenerating the review document does not include all the figures on the editorial page |
| 19 | Mar 14, 2011 2:25 PM | Downlaoding files can be painstaking when a very fast Internet link is lacking (my case!). The zip recently implemented is a good improvement, but it would be still better if figures could be downloaded the same way. |
| 20 | Mar 14, 2011 1:59 PM | No |
| 21 | Mar 14, 2011 1:59 PM | I see that some authors are selecting same or just a few Co-Editors - this has some disadvantages from ethics point of view |
| 22 | Mar 14, 2011 1:57 PM | Yes - a filter in the World Directory which allows me to search only among people who have logged in within a certain time span, e.g. after 2008 - for short: a kind of (in)activity filter. |
| 23 | Mar 14, 2011 1:53 PM | I use the citation tool in publcif which often leads to multiple comments back to the author - inconsistent dates - references missing from one section or the other, etc. It would be very helpful for checkCif to generate a list of these errors that could help authors correct the problems ahead of time or could at least but used in a 'cut and paste' fashion for the editors when they generate their comments to the authors. |
| 24 | Mar 14, 2011 1:42 PM | Links back to the co-editor home page from ALL screens. |
| 25 | Mar 14, 2011 1:40 PM | Papers with Alert A and without an VRF should not be transferred to me. This has happened in the past. |
| 26 | Mar 14, 2011 1:40 PM | Is there any easy way of incorporating a spell checker option into the abstract and comment sections for people using PRINTCIF before submission? This may be useful for people not having English/French/German/Russian as a first language. |
| 27 | Mar 14, 2011 1:37 PM | Provide help with finding referees. Finding referees is by far the biggest problem! |