I have been reading some organocatalysis papers lately to try to get a better sense of the field. The chemistry appeals to my generally poor background in organometallic chemistry and my interest in understanding how enzyme catalysis works.
Publications in the field of organocatalysis range over a wide range from the very concept-to-application publications of some of the founders of the field, (MacMillan, List, Jorgenson, etc.) to me-too chemistry where a known catalysts is applied to previously un-organocatalyzed systems or a small change is made to a know catalyst without any hypothesis development that moves the field forward. It's a newer hot field so this range of application will work it self out.
Unfortunately, as in the case of other "buzzword" fields a lot of shaky stuff appears to be slipping through the cracks. In the last couple of days I have seen two papers, one in Org. Lett. and one in Syn. Lett., that have such problems that I can't see how the reviewers did not send them back to the authors for at least a rewrite. An example problem from one the papers is:
Sure organocatalysis has yet not matured enough to work out a consistent terminology (ie. what does "bifunctional catalysis" mean) but the basics of the science of organic chemistry must still apply.
T.S. Hall
Writing is Thinking
5 days ago
No comments:
Post a Comment