| 查看: 204 | 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
有没有人能给点建议
已经有5人回复
-
假如你的研究生提出不合理要求
已经有12人回复
-
实验室接单子
已经有7人回复
-
全日制（定向）博士
已经有5人回复
-
萌生出自己或许不适合搞科研的想法，现在跑or等等看？
已经有4人回复
-
Materials Today Chemistry审稿周期
已经有4人回复
-
参与限项
已经有3人回复
-
对氯苯硼酸纯化
已经有3人回复
-
所感
已经有4人回复
-
要不要辞职读博？
已经有7人回复
