| 查看: 206 | 回复: 0 | |||
| 当前主题已经存档。 | |||
| 【有奖交流】积极回复本帖子，参与交流，就有机会分得作者 montclimber 的 5 个金币 ，回帖就立即获得 1 个金币，每人有 1 次机会 | |||
montclimber金虫 (正式写手)
|
[交流]
被Synthetic Communications拒了，有没有更好的杂志？
|
||
|
等了一年多收到的拒信： Dear XXX: > >I regret to inform you that our reviewers have now considered your paper but unfortunately feel it unsuitable for publication in Synthetic Communications. For your information I attach the reviewer comments at the bottom of this email. I hope you will find them to be constructive and helpful. You are of course now free to submit the paper elsewhere should you choose to do so. > >Thank you for considering Synthetic Communications. I hope the outcome of this specific submission will not discourage you from the submission of future manuscripts. > >Sincerely, >Dr. XXX >Associate Editor, Synthetic Communications >> > >Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author: > >Reviewer: 1 >Comments to the Author > The synthesis of XXX is really neccessiry due to XXX have been served as the inhibitor of cellular nucleus topoisomerase I , protein kinase C as well as checkpoint kinase. > Author reported that the XXX reaction can obtain better yield than XXX reported by .Anizon F,et al (J. Med. Chem. 1997, 40,3456-3465) and considered that possible reason of low yields may due to XXX. > However, author did not presented the correspounding data of solubility of XXX. Author failed to get the Anizon reported results. How did author to review this results? Can author confirm the Anizon reported results is not repeated result? If the Anizon reported results is a repeatable, This manuscript will lose publish value. > Reviewer suggest that author present more experiemental results to indicate that the solubility of XXX is a key factor effecting reaction yield. And confirm the Anizon reported results is not a repeated result. > > >Reviewer: 2 >Comments to the Author >This manuscript describes XXX. However, the same reaction with same reagent had been reported in 1987 (J. Org. Chem. 1987, 52, 1177-1185). This paper is not recommended for a publication in Synthetic Communications. Reviewer2 说的这篇文献我现在没有全文，但是我也回复两位审稿人了，说了自己的理由： For reviewer 1: In Anizon’s article, there is no data available supporting the solubility of XXX. We had found it hard to dissolve in toluene when we carried out TLC testing. However, TLC results revealed an evident spot (fluorescent yellow) when the oxidative reaction took place in combinatorial solvents in relatively very short time. We did have observed a near 90% yield when we used a combinatorial solvent-- XXX, but not in pure toluene. Thus we guessed there might be a small mistake in Anizon’s article. TLC could not give us actual figures, and maybe next time we should try HPLC. For reviewer 2: Actually we had reported XXX reaction of two compounds, not just XXX. We discovered that combinatorial solvents had improved solubility of XXX and the catalyst XXX had not been added during the cyclisation. 感觉，既然已是被拒，有再多理由人家也不会考虑了吧？ 转投什么杂志可以？ [ Last edited by montclimber on 2010-3-23 at 14:36 ] |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
什么是人一生最重要的？
已经有3人回复
-
过年走亲戚时感受到了所开私家车的鄙视链
已经有10人回复
-
今年春晚有几个节目很不错，点赞！
已经有12人回复
-
情人节自我反思：在爱情中有过遗憾吗？
已经有13人回复
-
体制内长辈说体制内绝大部分一辈子在底层，如同你们一样大部分普通教师忙且收入低
已经有12人回复
-
基金正文30页指的是报告正文还是整个申请书
已经有5人回复
