Two main ways to encode structural heterogeneity beyond B-factors or TLS: multiconformer or multi-model (ensemble) models.

But regardless we agree and this is degenerating (my fault) into semantics!

It is the whole point. Peer review is the process of science. Not just a set of comments that couple to an accept reject decision.

I think you have a myopic view of what is peer review.

And that getting good peer review through a journal - as Ben apparently got here - is not mutually exclusive with preprints. So by not positing a preprint - it denies an opportunity for it to be strengthened even more by all methods of peer review / feedback.

I’m literally saying the counterpoint. They are NOT in competition. Peer review is more than a structured comment (which i love to write) it’s the opportunity for others to build early on it, cite it, email you privately etc. the whole point is that it is in conversation early

The whole point of preprints is to get MORE peer review. Not less? These aren’t in competition…

Having multiple venues where feedback is centered and author controls VOR is a great step. @elife.bsky.social doesn’t curate everything and f1000 model does have binary “approval”

Is certified better? 😜

Sorry!

You can be a part of an rm1 with an r35 - but you and your lab cannot get more $ if it’s awarded.

@richardsever.bsky.social !

Also want to highlight that Takanori Nakane made some very helpful and constructive comments about our preprint, which we plan to address in a revised version: disq.us/p/33zqohj

Technically correct, but proper way to say that is that AAAS and Cell Press publishing policies are incompatible with the open research sharing policies of HHMI.

You are of course correct. Will be interesting to see whether the journals, authors or HHMI adapt

So not fully compatible with the new HHMI policy on preprints

My read is that the initially submitted version is the only thing that can be posted as a preprint. But… that this version can be posted as a preprint anytime (even if it is no longer the private “current” version after the manuscript has evolved during peer review)

Still technically not allowed by @nature.com family journals though right?