From: Chapman, Robert D n/a (robert.chapman$##$navy.mil)
Date: Tue Jun 06 2006 - 15:44:38 EDT
Dr. Rajasekharan:
I suggest that it's alternatively possible that the reviewers of your cited article (as well as those for J. Med. Chem.) did know about solid/liquid phase diagrams. They may have known that the m.p. of 91% DMSO with 9%water has a m.p. of 0 °C [Rosso & Carbonnel, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris 1975, 281, 955]. (DMSO-water has a stable eutectic at 72.5% DMSO with a m.p. of -70 °C!) Another example: DMSO (m.p. 18.43 °C) with sulfolane (m.p. 28.46 °C) has a eutectic composition of 56% sulfolane with m.p. -19.86 °C [Jannelli & Pansini, J. Chem. Eng. Data 1985, 30, 428]. Many solutes might have a "favorable" effect of lowering the m.p. of predominantly-DMSO reaction mixtures down to 0 °C ("freezing point depression"). I don't know the DMSO compositions of the reactions referred to in this thread.
Weighing in on the original topic of this thread: I believe that some journals are "better" than others. The "ISI Impact Factor" (http://scientific.thomson.com/free/essays/journalcitationreports/impactfactor/) attempts to quantify this quality. The journals originally cited in this thread ("Tetrahedron, tetrahedron letters, synthesis") tend to have "pretty good" reputations, in my opinion. One opinion expressed about them does not apply to these journals, in my opinion: "They say that these journals do not carefully review the submissions and will publish more or less anything." I suspect that there are journals to which such a statement might apply, but these titles are not among them. Others in this thread have cited examples of irreproducibility, but I think there are very many different possible reasons for such a result, and it should not necessarily be blamed on the quality of a journal.
Sincerely,
Robert D. Chapman, Ph.D.
Chemistry Branch (Code 498200D)
Naval Air Warfare Center
1900 N. Knox Rd. Stop 6303
China Lake, CA 93555-6106
-----Original Message-----
From: everybody-bounces$##$orglist.net
[mailto:everybody-bounces$##$orglist.net]On Behalf Of kallikat rajasekharan
Sent: June 06, 2006 8:51
To: everybody$##$orglist.net
Subject: Re: ORGLIST: Bad Journals?
Hi Ohad,
So you too had trouble with DMSO! My grad student
was trying a reaction recently from one of the
journals mentioned herein.... "was stirred at 0C for
about an hour in DMSO....." But don't blame the
journals...perhaps the reviwers could
spend a wee bit more time? From a top ranking
journal, I had a reviewer directing us to add a
reference,which in fact was already cited as the first
in the list....We once repeated
dozens of times a protocol from a top journal,
authored by a giant in the field, to no avail...
Well, thank you for the very sensible advice at the
end of your post.
KN Rajasekharan
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
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