From: Ken Knott (esprcorn$##$hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Jun 06 2006 - 12:33:57 EDT
Please don't take so much offense. This was a question provoked by
curiosity more than anything else. We all have a right to our own opinions
and I was wondering if those I had heard were the general consensus or the
minority. From what I have read so far, they would indeed seem to be the
minority.
>From what I have seen on this list, there is a great variety of commentary
and that is what makes this list interesting to keep up with from day to
day.
Ken
>From: "HERVE Gregoire" <G.HERVE$##$snpe.com>
>To: "Ken Knott"
><esprcorn$##$hotmail.com>,<willjones46$##$hotmail.com>,<everybody$##$orglist.net>
>Subject: RE : ORGLIST: Bad Journals?
>Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 18:17:19 +0200
>
>I was thinking that this site was a bit serious. But regarding some very
>intelligent answers, I have got some doubts now. I do not think that there
>are some specific bad journals, and according to me Tet. and tet Lett. are
>not bad journals. Once I tried to reproduce a procedure described in the
>JOC and it failed. I asked the corresponding author why it did not work and
>he replied they had also some toubles to reproduce their work. Maybe we can
>distinguish older papers (of tetrahedron or so...). It is right that some
>older procedures were not fully described.
>Last, about liers or so, it does not worth replying to peole who criticize
>Japenese or French chemists. Please try to avoid "clichés" or try to find a
>more convenient site to do that... Thank you.
>
>Grégoire HERVÉ
>SME Centre de Recherches du Bouchet
>Groupe SNPE
>+33 (0)1 64 99 11 81
>g.herve$##$snpe.com
>
>
>
>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : everybody-bounces$##$orglist.net [mailto:everybody-bounces$##$orglist.net]
>De la part de Ken Knott
>Envoyé : lundi 5 juin 2006 21:26
>À : willjones46$##$hotmail.com; everybody$##$orglist.net
>Objet : RE: ORGLIST: Bad Journals?
>
>
>Definately not trying to provoke a war here by any means... I found their
>comments interesting myself. I had seen recently that tetrahedron and
>tetrahedron letters had solid impact rating recently as well. I was a bit
>suprised by the commentary and I was searching for differing or similar
>viewpoints.
>
>I don't know if people are just responding to me specifically or to the
>list
>as well, but I've received a mixed bag of responses thus far.
>
>Anyway, the post-docs and even a professor suggest some journals are
>definately better than others. They don't go quite as far as another
>professor I know who says commonly, 'Don't trust anything written by the
>French.. ' I don't know how much he's joking either... lol
>
>Ken
>
>
> >From: "will jones" <willjones46$##$hotmail.com>
> >To: esprcorn$##$hotmail.com, everybody$##$orglist.net
> >Subject: RE: ORGLIST: Bad Journals?
> >Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 18:45:54 +0000
> >
> >Blimey Ken!
> >
> >That's a pretty bold statement, which will no doubt bring some
> >reviewers
> >out of the woodwork!! I know there are at least a couple of reviewers
>from
> >ACS that are on this list.
> >
> >Tetrahedron Letters is the most cited letters journal in chemistry,
> >which
> >pretty much suggests that something in them is being done elsewhere. I
> >believe also that Tetrahedron and Tetrahedron Letters are both in the top
>3
> >for being the most cited chemistry journals.
> >
> >Have they ever tried emailing the people who have done the experiments?
> >Most journals give NMR in supplemental data, so the final product can be
> >identified with some certainty.
> >
> >If I've ever had issues redoing something that has been published, then
> >I
> >usually think that it's my individual techniques, rather than something
>has
> >been misrepresented.
> >
> >Should be interesting to see what you start up here though!!
> >
> >Will
> >
> >
> >
> >>From: "Ken Knott" <esprcorn$##$hotmail.com>
> >>To: everybody$##$orglist.net
> >>Subject: ORGLIST: Bad Journals?
> >>Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 14:11:52 -0400
> >>
> >>I have been told by many post-docs in my school that when doing
> >>literature
> >>searches that there are many that should be regarded warily. These
> >>include Tetrahedron, tetrahedron letters, synthesis, and others. They
>say
> >>that these journals do not carefully review the submissions and will
> >>publish more or less anything. And that the results are often
> >>irrepreducible.
> >>
> >>What do you all think about this? Are there others you would
> >>recommend
> >>not putting much faith in?
> >>
> >>Thanks,
> >>
> >>Ken
> >>
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>ORGLIST - Organic Chemistry Mailing List
> >>Website / Archive / FAQ: http://www.orglist.net
> >>To post a message (TO EVERYBODY) send to everybody$##$orglist.net To
> >>unsubscribe, send to everybody-request$##$orglist.net the message:
> >>unsubscribe your_orglist_password your_address
> >
> >
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>ORGLIST - Organic Chemistry Mailing List
>Website / Archive / FAQ: http://www.orglist.net
>To post a message (TO EVERYBODY) send to everybody$##$orglist.net To
>unsubscribe, send to everybody-request$##$orglist.net the message: unsubscribe
>your_orglist_password your_address
_______________________________________________
ORGLIST - Organic Chemistry Mailing List
Website / Archive / FAQ: http://www.orglist.net
To post a message (TO EVERYBODY) send to everybody$##$orglist.net
To unsubscribe, send to everybody-request$##$orglist.net the message: unsubscribe your_orglist_password your_address
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Feb 13 2007 - 14:17:01 EST