Results of the Co-editor's QUESTIONNAIRE
1. Please enter your name
  answered question 99
 
 skipped question
0
  Response
Count
Response Text
Dr. Eberhardt Herdtweck
alan pinkerton
Carolyn Brock
blacque olivier
roussel
Arthur Mar
Alan Lough
Albov
Masood Parvez
Eugene Cheung
Allen Grayson Oliver
Sandy Blake
Mark Spackman
Corrado Rizzoli
Karl Wilhelm Tornroos
T. N. Guru Row
K.Chinnakali
Ilia Guzei
Jim Simpson
Alexandr Yatsenko
David Watson
James Kaduk
Urszula Rychlewska
Schmalle
Keiichiro Ogawa
Andrew Bond
gervais Chapuis
Maria
Huub Kooijman
Carl Henrik Gorbitz
George Ferguson
Dave Billing
Marcia Scudder
PARTHASARATHI DASTIDAR
Hidehiro Uekusa
Peter Healy
Hiroyuki Ishida
Ning-Hai Hu
Graeme Gainsford
Chris Howard
T.R.Welberry
Catharine Esterhuysen
Sergey Lindeman
Glenn P. A. Yap
Phil Squattrito
Joel Mague
Alex Yanovsky
john Low
Jan Fabry
Marilyn Olmstead
Louis Farrugia
Gary Nichol
Biserka Kojic-Prodic
Sylvain Bernes
ton spek
Larry Falvello
Kumar Biradha
VAN DER LEE Arie
Tiekink
Tony Linden
Owen Johnson
Helen Stoeckli-Evans
Matthias Zeller
Wolfgang Imhof
Matthias Weil
Baggio, Ricardo
Bernie Santarsiero
I. David Brown
Karla Fejfarova
Rahul Banerjee
Michal Dusek
Floerke
Fischer
Rybakov
Georgina Rosair
Dmitry Yufit
Duan-Jun Xu
Maciej Kubicki
Lugia Maria da Silva Rebelo Gomes
Uk Lee
Sean Parkin
Vladimir V. Chernyshev
Peter Jones
Jean-Claude Daran
Michael Bolte
Judith Flippen-Anderson
Martin Nieger
Ulli Englert
Christopher Glidewell
Vratislav Langer
Ivan Brito
Orhan Buyukgungor
sander van smaalen
Mark Elsegood
Bill Harrison
Christian Nather
Phillip Fanwick
John Gallagher
Peter Mueller
99
2. Which of the following programs do you currently have access to?
  answered question 97
 
 skipped question
2
  Yes No Response
Count
PLATON: 94.8% (91) 5.2% (5) 96
SHELXL: 92.5% (86) 7.5% (7) 93
JANA: 28.2% (20) 71.8% (51) 71
CRYSTALS: 31.4% (22) 68.6% (48) 70
publCIF: 94.7% (90) 5.3% (5) 95
enCIFer: 81.6% (71) 18.4% (16) 87
Mercury: 89.4% (84) 10.6% (10) 94
JMol: 43.2% (35) 56.8% (46) 81
3. Please rate the usefulness of the following programs for your Co-editorial work, including any that you do not currently have access to
  answered question 97
 
 skipped question
2
  Very useful Useful Use sometimes Never use Response
Count
PLATON: 80.0% (76) 6.3% (6) 9.5% (9) 4.2% (4) 95
SHELXL: 75.8% (72) 9.5% (9) 7.4% (7) 7.4% (7) 95
JANA: 7.4% (6) 3.7% (3) 3.7% (3) 85.2% (69) 81
CRYSTALS: 1.3% (1) 6.3% (5) 12.7% (10) 79.7% (63) 79
publCIF: 61.1% (58) 22.1% (21) 9.5% (9) 7.4% (7) 95
enCIFer: 22.7% (20) 21.6% (19) 22.7% (20) 33.0% (29) 88
Mercury: 52.7% (49) 16.1% (15) 17.2% (16) 14.0% (13) 93
JMol: 1.1% (1) 3.4% (3) 23.0% (20) 72.4% (63) 87
4. Are there programs/software packages not mentioned above that you use on a day-to-day basis in your Co-editorial work? Please list these additional programs/software packages below in order of importance, starting with the most important first:
  answered question 58
 
 skipped question
41
  Response
Count
1 XDRKplot
2 Adobe Acrobat
3 WINGX ORTEP
4 Atoms (for drawing crystal structures) Findit (ICSD for checking known structures) SciFinder (for checking literature references) Structure Tidy (for standardizing coordinates, useful for checking if a structure was previously known)
5 Conquest for the CSD
6 WordPad Diamond Wincoot ORTEP3v2 - Windows WinGX
7 Cambridge Structural Database
8 PARST95-97
9 CCDC WEB of Science & Scifinder (references etc.) George Sheldrick's graphics program XP
10 No
11 home-written small programs, OLEX2, ConQuest, SciFinder
12 Since I use a MAC, having all of the software available on that platform would be helpful. PLATON is not yet available on OSX, so I have to use another computer. It is very useful but very inconvenient at present.
13 Pluton (MS-DOS version), Babel
14 ConQuest ACD/Lab XP WinGx X-Win CrystalExplorer
15 QUEST
16 Materials Studio Diamond Jade GSAS
17 WinGX ConQuest
18 Adobe Acrobat Pro (to compare different versions of articles)
19 WinGX OLEX-2
20 Diamond
21 CrystalMaker
22 CrystalStructure
23 DIAMOND Photoshop SHELXTL ChemDraw
24 Examdiff
25 ISOTROPY Programs at BILBAO
26 X-Seed
27 Olex2
28 checkCIF (web version)
29 I actually use CIF2SX to produce .res from .cif. Perhaps there is something more standard now to be used for this purpose
30 Yes, I use them always.
31 PARST ORTEP-3
32 CSD (Conquest and Vista) SHELXTL (XP)
33 WinGX
34 Mogul ConQuest
35 Cambridge Structural Database ChemBioOffice text editor
36 Diamond ACDLabs ChemSketch
37 Material studio visualizer
38 Olex2
39 DIAMOND CSD
40 Conquest (Cambridge Structural Database) Chemdraw (mostly to check compound names) Scifinder
41 Adobe Reader
42 Diamond
43 None
44 GRETEP (for graphics and geometry) VALIST (for valence calculations)
45 Diamond
46 Google to check if non IUCr references are correct Cambridge Structural database
47 OLEX2
48 Schakal
49 WINGX
50 DIAMOND RPluto VISTA MOGUL
51 CSD data base: conquest and vista rpluto
52 Cambridge Database
53 SHELXTL-Plus (esp. XP) DIAMON
54 Acrobat PRO MS-Word
55 Platon and SHELX programs is anything I need
56 notepad
57 ORTEP-3 for Windows VALENCE (bond valence sum calculator)
58 CSD suite of programs
58
5. Are there other programs that you would like to use in your Co-editorial work but do not?
  answered question 86
 
 skipped question
13
  Response
Percent		 Response
Count
Yes
15.1% 13
No
84.9% 73
If yes, please list the programs and the reasons why you do not use them
# If yes, please list the programs and the reasons why you do not use them
1 MIght be useful to have access to a program for visualizing inorganic structures.
2 It is sometimes hard to check some of the assertions authors make, like "this is the first example of", especially where the assertion is hard to verify. I have no real idea how this could be addressed beyond using SciFinder, etc.
3 XSEED
4 VASP CASTEP For both I am between licenses at Ineos and IIT, so the problem is temporary.
5 Cambridge Database
6 any program to check literature references with links to ISI Web of Knowledge (Citation Index) and SciFinder; any program to check chemical names
7 FullProf: Still learning to navigate its menus.
8 XPREP
9 This is an intermediate answer berween yes/no: even if I use PLATON, which I consider a superb program, I do not master its use and so I extract from it only part of its capabilities. May be it is because I began using it in my late 50's, when begining with my work as a Coeditor, but I find difficult to grasp the program's phylosophy of use. On the other hand I realize SHELXL may be as coumbersome as PLATON to master, but I have been using it for ages. In addition, there are superb reviews on its use, as the one by Peter Mueller. Something by the like about PLATON would be extremely useful (at least for me!).
10 I would like to use publCIF and also want to know more about how to generate .hkl file from Platon.It will be good if IUCR generates the .hkl file automatically while submission of the paper.
11 SHELXTL
12 TOPOS (by V. A. Blatov, Samara)

12
6. Do you do test refinements of the structures presented in submissions?
  answered question 97
 
 skipped question
2
  Response
Percent		 Response
Count
Always
32.0% 31
In most cases
22.7% 22
Sometimes
29.9% 29
Never
15.5% 15
7. Do you use any specific programs or services for finding referees?
  answered question 97
 
 skipped question
2
  Response
Percent		 Response
Count
Yes
12.4% 12
No
87.6% 85
If yes, please list the programs and services you use
# If yes, please list the programs and services you use
1 WDC - sometimes, but it is of limited use as it is not up to date.
2 World Directory Web of Science
3 Bruker users list members, IUCr World directory
4 IUCr World directory
5 World Directory Web of Science Google
6 World Directory of Crystallographers Web of Science Google SciFinder
7 Crystallographic databases, IUCr journals and Web of Science
8 In exceptional cases (maybe 1-2% of all reviewed submissions), I search for an expert through the IUCr WDC.
9 The World Directory of Crystallographers
10 JANE Science Citation Index SciFinder
11 World Directory CSD SciFinder
12 not really applicable to Acta E
13 I Use the Cambridge Database to find related compounds. Maybe I'll use in the future (I'm just an editor beginner) Sci-finder
14 Internet search (sometimes)
15 I am the referee

15
8. Would you find it helpful to have more tools available to help you choose referees? E.g. a reviewer pool/board
  answered question 96
 
 skipped question
3
  Response
Percent		 Response
Count
Yes
44.8% 43
No
55.2% 53
If yes, please suggest any tools or services that might be useful to you
# If yes, please suggest any tools or services that might be useful to you
1 A reviewer pool with specialties of the reviewers.
2 A central data base of able potential 'quality controlled' referees would be of use.
3 Some internal database where the co-editors can share experiences with the referees
4 A central record of reviewers - principal purpose being to see if a potential reviewer is already "used" frequently by another co-editor, to avoid multiple independent invitations.
5 not aware of such tools
6 Reviewer pool
7 a reviewer pool
8 I only use the few people whom I know, with some either not obliging, or becoming unavailable.
9 the reviewer lists may be helpful, but it may cause excessive duty on a few listed reviewers.
10 a reviewer pool
11 Maybe a reviewer pool...
12 Reviewer pool
13 perhaps a list of referee volunteers?
14 A reviewer pool would be helpful.
15 I would find useful to have the database of referees/subjects. What I would really appreciate is the service regarding the chemical names. I rely on a colleague of mine who is an organic chemist and in more complicated cases on Dr. Kahovec who is the member of IUPAC commission on chemical names. I must admit that usually I do not ask the referees (except the chemical names) for help. The reason is that anyway no referee would recalculate the structure, so my insight is deeper. The articles are usually of such a quality that it is meaningless to ask other colleagues for help; it would kill their time. And it is also my experience that most people do the refereeing quite reluctantly. In some cases where I find some chemical or structural problems I ask the colleagues for advice.
16 As Acta E coeditor, I do not use referees, but do it all myself
17 A reviewer pool is no different to the editorial board.
18 List of Acta authors with number of papers published in the last three years.
19 reviewer pool some type of keyword search that automatically suggests upon submission people publishing related work.
20 ??
21 Not aware of any
22 I usually don't ask for a referee (Acta E) but it would be useful to be able to find one easily if the need arose
23 ?
24 rewiewer/pool board
25 At the moment, I have no clear idea
26 reviewer pool with the scope of interest for every person
27 not really applicable to Acta E
28 see above
29 A simple list with names of willing "victims" would be enough.
30 I use the Web of Science to track down suitable referees.
31 More knowledge of the exact areas of research of potential referees

31
9. Do you use research discovery tools (Scifinder, Gmelin etc.) for your editorial work?
  answered question 96
 
 skipped question
3
  Response
Percent		 Response
Count
Yes
66.7% 64
No
33.3% 32
If yes, please list the research discovery tools that you use
# If yes, please list the research discovery tools that you use
1 ScSifinder
2 Scifinder, ISI Web of Science
3 Scifinder Google
4 Cambridge Database
5 Scifinder; ICSD
6 SciFinder (to check if it's been done, has a polymorph, suspect chemistry), Merck Index (to check physical properties), CSD (to check if it's been done)
7 Cambridge Structure Database SciFinder
8 SciFinder
9 Scifinder
10 Scifinder & Web of Science
11 SciFinder, ConQuest
12 Conquest Scifinder
13 Sometimes, and google, in general.
14 Scirus, Science Citation Index
15 Scifinder Googlescience
16 Scifinder Google Scholar
17 isiknowledge.com, libraries
18 SciFinder, and Web of Science
19 Scifinder
20 REAXYS
21 Scifinder
22 Scifinder
23 Scifinder
24 SCOPUS
25 Web of Sciecne as indicated above
26 World Directory of Crystallographers Web of Science Google SciFinder
27 Web of science
28 Citation Index, SciFinder
29 Scifinder CSD
30 Scifinder
31 SciFinder
32 It depends whether I use them.
33 ISI Conquest
34 Scifinder Web of Science
35 SciFinder-Scholar and seach tools provided by the ACS, Elsevier, etc.
36 SciFinder
37 SciFinder CCDC
38 scifinder
39 Scifinder Google Scholar IUCr Journals Online
40 CSD WoS
41 Scifinder
42 Scifinder, Cambridge Structural Database
43 Scifinder
44 Scifinder
45 Scifinder
46 Scifinder
47 Scifinder; Scopus
48 Scirus
49 I haven't access to Scifinder, but I can access to ISI WEB
50 Scifinder, Web of Science
51 ISI Web of Science
52 Scifinder
53 Science Citation Index SciFinder
54 see above: World Directory CSD SciFinder
55 Pubmed, google to help check dates of references
56 I'll use sci-finder
57 Scifinder; Science Citation Index
58 Web of knowledge
59 Sometimes the Cambridge Database
60 (as above)

60
10. Which of these databases do you currently have access to
  answered question 96
 
 skipped question
3
  Yes No Response
Count
CSD: 90.6% (87) 9.4% (9) 96
ICSD: 52.3% (46) 47.7% (42) 88
Pauling file: 6.2% (5) 93.8% (76) 81
COD: 12.5% (10) 87.5% (70) 80
11. Please rate the usefulness of the following databases for your Co-editorial work, including any that you do not currently have access to
  answered question 96
 
 skipped question
3
  Very useful Useful Use sometimes Never use Response
Count
CSD: 82.3% (79) 10.4% (10) 3.1% (3) 4.2% (4) 96
ICSD: 25.3% (22) 11.5% (10) 21.8% (19) 41.4% (36) 87
Pauling file: 0.0% (0) 4.9% (4) 6.2% (5) 88.9% (72) 81
COD: 0.0% (0) 6.3% (5) 3.8% (3) 90.0% (72) 80
12. Are there crystallographic databases not mentioned above that you use on a day-to-day basis in your Co-editorial work? Please list these additional databases below in order of importance, starting with the most important first:
  answered question 13
 
 skipped question
86
  Response
Count
# Response Text
1 American Mineralogical Database: http://rruff.geo.arizona.edu/AMS/amcsd.php
2 PDB
3 Powder Diffraction File (PDF-4+ and Organic)
4 No
5 No
6 PDF2 (sometimes)
7 PDF4 (ICDD)
8 No
9 no
10 PDF-4
11 I now CSD online through work but it would be very helpful to have it available to co-editors through the IUCr
12 No
13 CrystalWeb (Daresbury unit-cell database)
13
13. Are there other crystallographic databases that you would like to use in your Co-editorial work but do not?
  answered question 91
 
 skipped question
8
  Response
Percent		 Response
Count
Yes
15.4% 14
No
84.6% 77
If yes, please list the databases and the reasons why you do not use them
# If yes, please list the databases and the reasons why you do not use them
1 If I had access to the ICSD I would probably use it, but I don't think my possible usage would justify the cost.
2 ICDD
3 Is there an index of compounds that have been published in Acta Crystallographica, other than just using the search function in Acta Cryst?
4 ICSD
5 I would like to use the CSD, but have no access to it.
6 Cambridge Database
7 I believe ICSD would be useful but currently I do not have access to it
8 It woud be useful to have an up-to-date version of ICSD. Last I checked, it was expensive. However, I haven't checked recently.
9 ICSD
10 ICSD but we have no subscription
11 ICSD - no access
12 Im aware that there are other depositories of crystallographic data ie at the National Crystallography service at Southampton that may have structures not in the CSD. It would be great to have a button on the editorial page to click to get ready access to them so they could be searched quickly and easily
13 ICSD. Cost.
14 ICSD
15 CSD; too expensive.
16 ICSD (I have no access to the ICSD)

16
14. The IUCr may be able to negotiate reduced-cost online access to certain databases for Co-editors. The access might be limited to database features most important for Co-editorial work. Please indicate which features are most important for you:
  answered question 95
 
 skipped question
4
  Very useful Useful Use sometimes Never use Response
Count
Substructure search: 55.4% (51) 29.3% (27) 6.5% (6) 8.7% (8) 92
Similarity search: 42.4% (39) 31.5% (29) 10.9% (10) 15.2% (14) 92
Reduced cell search: 40.0% (36) 25.6% (23) 16.7% (15) 17.8% (16) 90
Text/numeric search: 29.7% (27) 30.8% (28) 25.3% (23) 14.3% (13) 91
15. Are there database features not mentioned above that you use on a day-to-day basis in your Co-editorial work? Please list these additional features below in order of importance, starting with the most important first:
  answered question 13
 
 skipped question
86
  Response
Count
# Response Text
1 No
2 It is important to be able to combine search features, something WebCSD does not currently allow for.
3 Author
4 Something might be done to augment the automated "duplication search". A completely effective search (we can discuss what that is!) might be run centrally.
5 No
6 The geometrical parameters in order to compare the observed ones in the structure. Chemical names - for comparison
7 Formula search
8 hydrogen bonding non-bonded inertactions
9 No
10 no
11 We have become dependent on PLATON and checkCIF for things such as reduced cell search
12 No
13 Vista for bond distances and angles.
13
16. Do you have access to IUCr journals? Tick all that apply:
  answered question 96
 
 skipped question
3
  Response
Percent		 Response
Count
via Crystallography Journals Online
72.9% 70
Online via library
59.4% 57
Print via library
22.9% 22
Personal Copy
11.5% 11
I do not have access to IUCr journals
5.2% 5
17. Do you have any suggestions for improvements to the online journals?
  answered question 21
 
 skipped question
78
  Response
Count
# Response Text
1 None at this time
2 Works fine.
3 no
4 No
5 more clear graphical index page
6 Not right away - they are in pretty good shape.
7 It is probably not feasible given the volume of submissions, but I continue to be bothered by the drastic variation in the quality of the Comments that accompany Section E papers. Some authors make a genuine attempt to add value, while others submit material that is at worst inaccurate and ungrammatical.
8 No
9 I am not sure if I understood the question well. Nevertheless, I make use of the opportunity to suggest a search that would use logical operators in the IUCr journals.
10 It is usually hard to find the supplementary information. The link should be at the top of the main article HTML page.
11 no
12 Redesign home pages for CJO and each journal to make them more attractive and highlight recent top papers. cf. other journal websites.
13 No
14 no
15 With exception of Acta E that is open, access to Acta B and Acta C (these are the most usefuln in my case) is very difficult.I have access to hunderds of publications via library university facilities, but not to Acta B or A or C.
16 No for the moment
17 Anyone who does not have online access to journals would be at a great disadvantage. The IUCr should give online access to their journals to all co-editors
18 As a co-editor, I should have open access to all IUCr journals (our university e.g. has no access anymore to IUCr journals).
19 Personal Copy: Acta Cryst B only.
20 No
21 Acta E could feature better element/formula searches
21
18. Do you have any suggestions for improvements to the submission and review system?
  answered question 27
 
 skipped question
72
  Response
Count
# Response Text
1 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 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 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 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 no
6 OK
7 I think getting authors to suggest a couple of potential referees is most useful.
8 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 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 No
11 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 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 - 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 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 no
16 get the submitted figures in the zip-file instead of having them to dowload separately
17 Nothing that is politically correct to have recorded
18 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 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 No
21 I see that some authors are selecting same or just a few Co-Editors - this has some disadvantages from ethics point of view
22 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 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 Links back to the co-editor home page from ALL screens.
25 Papers with Alert A and without an VRF should not be transferred to me. This has happened in the past.
26 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 Provide help with finding referees. Finding referees is by far the biggest problem!
27
19. Are there any additional automatically generated files that you would like to have available on the submission system review document page? E.g. a listing created by PLATON CALC ALL, the results of a test SHELXL refinement run using the submitted data etc.
  answered question 90
 
 skipped question
9
  Response
Percent		 Response
Count
Yes
42.2% 38
No
57.8% 52
If yes, please list suggestions for automatically generated files that would be of use to you
# If yes, please list suggestions for automatically generated files that would be of use to you
1 PLATON CALC ALL
2 A test SHELXL run might be useful
3 YES, a complete PLATON listing included would be great, and eliminate the need for me to run it. Is there a way to automatically run the SHELX refinement, and do a comparison of the results, input cif vs. generated cif?
4 PLATON CALC ALL; LS from SHELXL or Crystals (if refined in Crystals); CIF VALID output
5 results of a test SHELXL refinement
6 Cf. previous question.
7 It would be useful to have the INS and HKL files for the submitted structures. Both are easily generated, one by copying and pasting, the other with PLATON
8 results of a test SHELX refinement
9 A test SHELXL refinement would be useful. I have to start up an old computer to use SHELXL and only do that when I really want to test something.
10 Sometimes the results of a SHELXL refinement would be useful
11 The results of a shelxl refinement sounds very useful especially when travelling with a netbook
12 .hkl file. This will save us time to have downloaded .fcf and the convert it to .hkl via PLATON
13 Platon "calc all" should be done in co-editor's site to reduce downloading task. There are many files to be downloaded, that are some times confusing or duplicated. "Download all available files" option may be helpful.
14 results of test SHELX refinement
15 A "PLATON CALC ALL" file may be helpful.
16 Shelxl refinement IF the input file is not included in the submission: the last .RES file is ESSENTIAL to sort out retraints.constraints and data "omissions".
17 SHELX files and a test SHELXL refinement
18 test refinement (shifts etc)
19 A test SHELXL refinement would be useful.
20 SHELXTL LST file would be useful
21 SHELX files would occasionally be useful, especially if structure was twinned. It would save time trying to reproduce reported refinement
22 A list of papers published by the main author in IUCr journals for the last 5 years, using a multi-criteria request, for ex. name, e-mail and affiliation. This would be useful for submissions from China, for which the search on name is not very sensible, because homonymy is very common.
23 platon calc all
24 Not automatically generated, but if an author has used SHELXL then the submission system should require their res file, rather than it being optional as it is now.
25 Results of refinement using submitted data.
26 The two suggested ones.
27 PLATON CALC ALL
28 raw hkl file before applying symmetry merging
29 SHELXL run
30 Platon calc - particularly rings, planes and hydrogen bonds results of shelx refinement packing diagram from Mercury with labelled axes
31 Actually, the ones mentioned are my two "standard" runs I make on my own. However, I am not sure it is worth having them automativally available.
32 I think we must have the automatically genarated .hkl file and also platon calc all if possible.
33 SHELXL refinement would be great. Since authors sometimes changes parameters manually, this might be case with parameters such as Fourier peaks as well.
34 the results of a test SHELXL refinement run using the submitted data
35 a test SHELXL refinement. Sometimes it would be interesting to have the raw data before merging.
36 see above - and some kind of output/comment from SHELXL could also be quite helpful.
37 A *.lst-file form the SHELXL refinement woub be very usefull. But even more usefull would be the real SHELXL input file from the final refinement from the authors!
38 Results of test SHELX run based on submitted data.

38
20. Please rate the following features of publCIF:
  answered question 92
 
 skipped question
7
  Very useful Useful Use sometimes Never use Response
Count
Related literature generation: 32.6% (30) 31.5% (29) 16.3% (15) 19.6% (18) 92
Reference checking: 61.5% (56) 22.0% (20) 6.6% (6) 9.9% (9) 91
Spell checking: 29.7% (27) 29.7% (27) 14.3% (13) 26.4% (24) 91
Generation of interactive figures: 2.2% (2) 15.7% (14) 22.5% (20) 59.6% (53) 89
Hydrogen-bonding table wizard: 16.7% (15) 32.2% (29) 18.9% (17) 32.2% (29) 90
Non-standard table wizard: 16.1% (14) 24.1% (21) 18.4% (16) 41.4% (36) 87
CIF syntax highlighting: 50.0% (45) 34.4% (31) 6.7% (6) 8.9% (8) 90
Importing of text from Word documents: 23.9% (21) 23.9% (21) 14.8% (13) 37.5% (33) 88
Author database: 13.5% (12) 27.0% (24) 14.6% (13) 44.9% (40) 89
21. What new features would be useful in publCIF:
  answered question 91
 
 skipped question
8
  Very useful Useful No so useful Not useful Response
Count
Generation of chemical diagrams: 42.2% (38) 42.2% (38) 10.0% (9) 5.6% (5) 90
Submission direct from publCIF: 17.4% (15) 39.5% (34) 31.4% (27) 11.6% (10) 86
Checking of differences between CIFs: 41.8% (38) 49.5% (45) 7.7% (7) 1.1% (1) 91
Database search: 37.9% (33) 35.6% (31) 21.8% (19) 4.6% (4) 87
22. Do you have any suggestions for other improvements to publCIF?
  answered question 23
 
 skipped question
76
  Response
Count
# Response Text
1 no
2 Direct submission from publCIF sounds very useful. Perhaps it could enforce checks on references and force the author to respond to inconsistencies before the submission is finalised? This could also be the place for a more comprehensive database search.
3 Not really, it is very nice!
4 I don't use it
5 Does publCIF highlight wrongly formatted reference? Haven't experienced it.
6 NO ... those above are excellent additions!
7 I know about it, but must start to use it!!!
8 I like to check the references but often the check of IUCr references doesn't work (this may be because I sit behind a firewall), and other references aren't checked. Since there are often typo's in authors' names or surnames and first names swapped it would be nice to have those references that have a problem flagged for checking, rather than having to check each one individually.
9 no
10 No
11 Sometimes it is still difficult to find a syntax error. The message "it should be obvious..." is not true!
12 The "mercury-like" window available in enCIFer was very useful (for me). Actually, both enCIFer and publCIF are great, and fusion of all functionalities would result in a complete software for edition.
13 There is still often a lag between the "text" window and the "CIF" window. Otherwise, it's a great program!
14 generator of _chemical_name_systematic
15 Automatic line breaks created by publcif tend to look HORRIBLE when looking at the file in a pure text editor. The file being locked up after finding some problems with cited articles is a bit annoying (but that's more important for authors, not editors). Could the layout (e.g. font used for special characters) be changed to resemble more what is seen in a final printcif document?
16 Upload my co-editor revision(s) from publCIF and launch my web browser at the 'paper details' page. This is probably covered by (ii) above.
17 choice to omit tables of coordinates and displacement parameters for theses and reports
18 I have noticed a number of bugs in edition, which makes some time easier to exit PublCif to make changes (viz., cut'n'paste with special characterrs, etc)
19 Generation of reprints with the chemical schemes and figures
20 English dictionnary to check the spelling of words.
21 The above answers are from the perspective of an author rather than an editor. Would spell check insistent on UK spelling?
22 No
23 I should use it more often!
23
23. Please add any additional comments or ideas for improving your day-to-day Co-editorial work.
  answered question 41
 
 skipped question
58
  Response
Count
# Response Text
1 Honestly I'm thinking of retiring from this duty. I know that I actually get fewer submissions than other co-editors (for which I'm grateful), but as I stated previously, the work has just become onerous. Although it is a duty that I accept as part of my career, reviewing for other journals at least provides me with some satisfaction in learning some new chemistry and keeping up with the scientific literature.
2 I find GOOGLE useful for checking doubtful references!
3 At this stage I am early in my career as a co-editor and am just "learning the ropes". I do not have any further considerations at this time.
4 Refereeing is the most problematic part of the process. Co-editors frequently review papers themselves. The increasing lack of willing and competent referees is troubling and there is also a rift on this matter between the IUCr journal leadership and the co-editors as the former seems not to be willing to acknowledge the problem. Furthermore, even if a referee is used the quality of the report is normally of moderate quality. For sure the co-editor is left with the responsibility to debug the paper in detail. Obviously this process is not water proof and the blame then falls on the latter, which can at times be trying. It stands to reason that there are different opinions already amongst the co-editors as to the importance of various editorial principles. To that should be added the standards set by the Chester editorial group and the section editor. Finally, the editorial group in Chester does a great and relentless work, vis-a-vis the individual co-editors and the community as a whole. Over these years the technical developments of submission handling for the IUCr journal is nothing short of impressive. Clearly it represents the cutting edge within scientific publishing.
5 NIL
6 An easy access to the English language dictionary
7 The most time consuming part for me is finding reviewers. It is also not clear sometimes whether the reviewers have the same view of the journal as the co-editors: for example, reviewers are often more sympathetic to accept "routine" structures for Section C. I would appreciate some specific discussion of the present and projected future role of reviewers for Section C at the JComm meeting.
8 Are reminders sent to referees who are late with their reports? I don't know.
9 I think we need to start looking at powderCIF more seriously. Submissions containing significant amounts of powder related work is bound to increase
10 I have problems judging the extent of my editorial powers. For example can I overrule a reviewer?
11 As for Mercury, Mogle check would be useful. It would be better not to check the software name, but also check what module to be used. After this survey, the summary would be helpful. Or is there any typical (or suggested) and detailed procedure list for co-eds?
12 I have found access to all the Acta journals essential and suggest that this tool be always available for those co-editors who are not members of subscribing libraries,
13 For me, everything is nicely in hand at the present time.
14 The system works pretty well!
15 Keep up the proactivity! I'm very impressed.
16 Re referees: Since I am doing Acta E and have only dealt with 2 submissions, I did not find a need for a referee. That may change if I get a difficult submission. So far, the resources I have access to have been quite adequate to deal with the two submissions I have had so far. In the future I may fine I need others.
17 I guess I once mentoned that all hints and recommendations issued by eidtors are useful, but one consolidated easy to follow up-to-date list with all issues to check before accepting the paper in one place would be a useful thing to have.
18 The problem refers to application of the difference electron density maps. It should be more and more applied. Perhaps there can be added some book of examples on the web page that can be referred to in typical cases.
19 Not day-to-day, but online access to the International Tables Vol. A would occasionally be useful.
20 Grammar checking facilities which point out to user the deficiencies before the Coeditor sees the paper
21 1- Any action encouraging authors to check as deeply as possible their drafts BEFORE submission. 2- For small, not disordered molecules: ask for a VRF not only for PLATON ALERT A but also ALERT B warning.
22 There are sources used in my editorial work which are not asked in the questionnaire: International Tables for X-ray crystallography, IUPAC Nomenclature of Inorganic and Organic Chemistry, Free Chemistry Databases on the Web, Chemical Dictionaries, Textbooks on Chemistry, Stereochemistry by K. Mislow.
23 Automatic rejection of any CIF which does not have all of the required fields. I have had many submissions which did not have, anywhere in the CIF, an experimental or related literature section.
24 If there was any way to automate the checking of numerical data and symmetry codes in text and captions, this would be great, but I suspect if is a tough problem. As a first step, possibly one could check that symmetry codes with the same code number in text/captions/tables were all self-consistent, i.e. that code (i) was unique throughout, etc. Ways to address the unresponsive reviewer problem. Ways to prevent E style papers being submitted to C. Still a problem. The word count test still lets papers clearly written for E into C. What about checking the requested journal and paper type data items? Many such papers arriving at C have E as the requested journal in the CIF! Such cases could be flagged as publication A alerts and block the submission until at least the requested journal and the one actually chosen are the same.
25 The IUCr has and continues to improve the lot of Co-editors, in particualr with PubCIF. Thanks!
26 Some problems with structures not created with Shelxtl did arise with the new fcf based checking procedure (e.g. with the weighting scheme used in Crystals). There are quite often problems with schemes and figures that do upload into the pdf file in much reduced resolution.
27 I find the setup as it is quite efficient. The main problems I come across concern mainly the poor English of some of the authors and the fact that they never seem to read the Notes to Authors. Some never read an actual paper in Acta Cryst E to see how they should prepare their own paper.
28 Can publCIF become my helper application when clicking on the 'CIF' link on the paper details web page?
29 I have difficulty keeping up with the changes make in the editorial on-line system without trying to figure out what further changes I would like to see :-)
30 a reminder if a paper that has been updated by the authors has not been inspected with e.g 3 days of revision
31 This is a very personal point of view, which may have to do with a rather deficient level as a Co-Editor on my side (Mainly regarding ACTA C): I have sometimes declared papers as accepted, overlooking some points spotted afterwards by the much more expert eye of the Section Editor, and which required getting back to the authors after having informed them that the paper had been found adequate for publication. I do not know how often this situation happens, but it could anyway be avoided if the acceptance mail to the authors be delivered ONLY after the Section Editor gives the OK (something which usually takes just a few days), thus avoiding the rather unpleasant situation of showing some kind of disagreement between Journal officers. I would like to emphasize also that this suggestion tries to defend the Journal's image, and not the Co-Editor's one!
32 An already generated .hkl file would be nice, but, of course, I can do it by myself using PLATON.
33 In my opinion on the site menu of the IUCr web server for review is complicated because there are several ways of making acceptance of the articles. Also the name of the actual .cif file available for revison has not the version number, so the check for the last version has to be done by the date.
34 I would like to can access to spell checking program.
35 In addition to comments above - I would like to see a way to require authors to actually provide responses to the editors comments rather than to just say 'done' and submit a new cif that has often ignored many comments.
36 Probably my answers to PublCif are a liitle bit doubtfull, cause I start now as a co-editor to use it. I only submit quite rarely manuscripts to IUCr journals. As mentioned earlier, the refinement input file (shelxl.ins) but also all data (not only the merged data in *.fcf) would be very helpful. Sometimes also a log-file from the data collection program might be usefull (to find out, what the authors have real done during the data collection).
37 Sorry, this is my last year anyway! Best wishes for the future ...
38 If I receive a submission which was formerly rejected by a colleague (Acta E or C) it would be nice to know the reasons for rejection. If the complete review cannot be provided (which I would understand) some catchwords (e.g. language, poor data, errors in the refinement) would be helpful.
39 It is becoming more difficult to find time to do Co-Editorial work given increasing academic pressures - this can have a knock-on effect on the quality of the co-editor reviews.
40 Acta is miles ahead of most journals!
41 How to deal with potential referees. Being nice just results in no response while setting hard limits can offend some. I have yet to find a balance here.
41