Naturalproductman’s Blog

Hey, is that a natural product?!

Archive for the ‘Random’ Category

Advice from Michael Doyle

Posted by naturalproductman on November 10, 2014

Michael Doyle gives advice about writing manuscripts in his ACIE profile article…basically he says to focus on the main points in the manuscript and all of the other details go to the supporting information. The intro persuades the reader to keep on reading. He started off his career as a professor at undergrad only institutions and moved to PhD ones and commented that at the undergrad only institutions, the resources are not as good but the students are top notch.


ACIE article

Posted in Random | Leave a Comment »

Triphenylphosphine (oxide) removal solved!

Posted by naturalproductman on October 25, 2014

You might remember an older post on something about the difficulty in removing triphenylphosphine or triphenylphosphine oxide removal. But first, how about a brief background: why would someone use triphenylphosphine in the first place? Well I can think of several reasons:

(1) Baylis-Hilman reaction

(2) Any metal cross coupling reaction using palladium tetrakis triphenylphosphine catalyst

(3) Mitsunobu reaction

So my particular problem was using the palladium tetrakis reagent to remove an Alloc protecting group.

You can see the details of the solution in page S-104 in supporting information file. But basically in a nutshell, instead of using tetrakis, I used Pd(DBA)2 and trimethylphosphine (PMe3) as the ligand, which evaporates at 38 degrees celsius.

Posted in Methodology, Random | 2 Comments »

Chembiodraw 14.0 Downloading Problems on the Mac?

Posted by naturalproductman on August 9, 2014

Did anybody else have trouble downloading Chembiodraw 14.0 on their macs?


My Chembiodraw 13.0 site license expired so I tried to download the new version 14.0 on my mac, but ran into several problems. Every time I would contact the customer support by email or through their website, it would take a long time for a response. The best thing was to get them on the phone.


First you need to make sure you have version 10.9 operating system.


Even after getting version 10.9, I had trouble with installation of the program because there is some glitch when you download.  I was lucky enough to get a hold of someone when I called their Waltham Massachusetts phone number at 5:30 AM.

On Finder you have to go to the Users folder, then Shared folder, then Library folder, then Preferences folder.


Then under Get Info option after right clicking the preferences folder, you have to go to Sharing & Permission in the pop up window. Then you have to let everyone have Read & Write permission.


Seems like I am not the only one with this problem because it is under the FAQ section of cambridgesoft.


Hope this helps anyone with the time and headache I had.




Posted in Random | Leave a Comment »

How long does it take to publish in ACIE?

Posted by naturalproductman on July 16, 2014

Ever wonder how long it takes to publish in ACIE?


Here’s an interesting article in Chimia that explains the process. Conclusion:  it takes about 13 days on average for a referee to review a submitted manuscript.


Chimia paper

Posted in Random | 1 Comment »

Problems with SENSATIONALIZING Science

Posted by naturalproductman on June 29, 2014

This is related to the previous post about the elevated impact factors that some journals have. I guess the effect of trying to publish in the big monster journals with impact factors over 30 is that you get people who want to publish there so their careers can sky rocket. As a result, these people may falsify data to convince people who are not familiar with proper control experiments to admit that the science was great.

Posted in Random | 4 Comments »

Random Discussion: Subjectivity of Journal Submissions

Posted by naturalproductman on June 28, 2014

Here’s an unusual thought here that I never really considered until recently but it is worth taking note:  why is Science, Nature, and Cell still such a high impact factor? Let me briefly explain the Science editorial process when they receive a paper. Step 1: Researcher submits a paper, editor office gets it. Step 2: Editor does a prescreen before even sending it to reviewers (real scientists) and determines if it is good enough to be in Science or not.

I read this rejection letter from one of the editors and it was stated in the last paragraph that:

“Papers are selected on the basis of discipline, novelty, and general significance, in addition to the usual criteria for publication in specialized journals. Therefore, our decision is not necessarily a reflection of the quality of your research but rather of our stringent space limitations.”

The paper didn’t make it through Step 2. I have a problem with Step 2. Reading the editor’s name this letter is affiliated to, one can do a pubmed search and find out if this person has a good enough background that is suitable to judge whether the paper is truly good enough for Science journal or not.

I can say that after looking at the background of the editor, they probably were not even qualified to understand that the paper was good enough. One can argue however that if it’s truly good science anybody could say that it is interesting. But from looking at today’s Science research articles that get published, I’m not really that impressed with the content. I mean yes, it is Science journal with an impact factor of over 30, but still, when the editor has a mere 11 publication (of them, none are in Science except for the editorial articles they have written), would you think that this person is qualified to judge if a paper is good enough for Science or not?

On the other hand, if you look at other journals, such as ACIE or JACS or Biochemistry or JBC. These journals actually have professors, who run their own labs and are still publishing as the editors. These are scientists who are doing research currently and are up to date with the exciting world of science.

Maybe this is just a bitter rant from someone who feels rejected, but still, I think I may have a point here. I do not mean to completely offend the qualifications of the editorial board of Science magazine but there is a big difference between these journals with impact factor over 30 and other top tier journals, which have editors, who run labs and are involved in actual experimentation and practicing actual science. I hope someone can enlighten me if I am incorrect.







Posted in Random | Leave a Comment »

Academia vs. Industry

Posted by naturalproductman on May 17, 2014

Ever consider the pros and cons between academics and industry? Here’s a nice article from someone who had experience in both.

Plos article

Posted in Random | Leave a Comment »

This is funny

Posted by naturalproductman on March 12, 2014

How many hours do post docs and grad students work a day?


Science random

Posted in Random | Leave a Comment »

Job postings

Posted by naturalproductman on January 15, 2014

There are many places one can find postings for jobs. The back of the C&E News magazine in the classified usually has them.

Posted in Random | Leave a Comment »

JACS or Angewandte?

Posted by naturalproductman on December 27, 2013

Which journal is better: JACS or ACIE?

I think many people have asked this question before.

ACIE has a higher impact factor than JACS.

Something I do like better about JACS than ACIE is that the supporting information is free to the public.

Posted in Random | 7 Comments »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 73 other followers