| 查看: 612 | 回复: 3 | |||
| 当前主题已经存档。 | |||
[交流]
文章背后的故事--------Surface Science Reports
|
|||
|
New paper published Zhenmafudan @ 2006-07-15 22:47 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.surfrep.2006.03.001 文章背后的故事--------Surface Science Reports Zhenmafudan A-3-8. Surface Science Reports At the end of 2003, Francisco, who is famous, was invited to write whatever suitable for Surface Science Reports. Francisco has chosen to write "Selectivity in Catalysis: A Molecular-Level Understanding from Surface-Science Studies". He gave me an outline composed by him and wanted to "challenge" me by letting me start from scratch. I felt quite excited about it because I have one more paper to publish, but I can really sense that challenge: not everyone can do the job well! First, I took a look at Francisco's detailed outline, and found it is not suitable because what he outlined there were routine stuff similar to what he reviewed in Progress in Surface Science [53], he included many inorganic surface steps such as the combining of oxygen, and many organic elementary steps have little to do with selectivity in catalysis because in many inorganic reactions, the selectivity is not an issue at all. I questioned whether his outline and the title really match. In addition, I think "selectivity" is only a buzzword for surface scientist to get funding. Francisco kept on saying in the Introduction of his research papers [54; 55] that selectivity is so important in catalysis so the publication of his papers on the surface chemistry of alkyl iodidies [54; 55] is justified. But the key point is: the selectivities of the interested reactions (such as selective oxidation, oligomerization) in his papers were very low (the TPD peaks of interesting products were very small), and he did not add alloys to further improve the selectivity, so if I want to increase the selectivity in industrial catalysis, I just go ahead and test more catalysts, and why should I carry out surface science studies without improving the selectivity (and without solving the problem)? Because of many concerns like the above, we finally changed everything including both title and content. Then Francisco let me took a look at an account entitled "Mechanisms of Hydrocarbon Conversion Reactions on Heterogeneous Catalysts: Analogies with Organometallic Chemistry" submitted to Topics in Catalysis [56], proposing that that paper can be a starting point. I began to start from scratch. During the summer of 2004, it took me 2.5 months to read a large volume of literature on the surface organic chemistry on metal surfaces, mainly the papers written by F. Zaera, F. Solynosi, B.E. Bent, and M.A. Barteau. At first I found it was very difficult to understand Francisco's papers, because they are very long and tedious. However, my strategy was to read whatever looks to be easier to understand, and then move to whatever looks to be harder to understand. For instance, to understand one of Francisco's long papers on Journal of Catalysis [57], I first read his short papers published on Studies on Surface Science and Catalysis [58] and Journal of Molecular Catalysis A: Chemical [59] dealing with the same system but describing using an easy language. I also read the same paper from time to time for several times to really understand what was talked about. Gradually, my reading speed became faster and faster, and more importantly, if I can understand Francisco's "GRE English" then the "TOEFL English" used by other authors is no more a barrier to me. Within these 2.5 months (or slightly more than that), I not only read many papers, but also composed a preliminary draft. However, there came my nightmare: Francisco told me that when he asked me to write the review, the assumption is that I should do experiments during the day, and write review in between experiments and during the night. If I can not do that, he will not let me work on it any longer until I show progress in my research. I felt quite angry at that time. I argued that "If there is no water, where is the fish coming from? It is not that you sleep in the bed for one night, then next morning you can finish the paper. You ask somebody to do the same job and try. I bet it will take somebody else three years to do the same thing!" I had to continue on the experiments and did not read any surface science literature until another "opportunity" came: our Chemistry Department was moved to a new building starting from early 2005. At that time somebody else might only need a beaker and an oven to synthesis nano materials, but this was absolutely not the case with us, and it really took several months for Francisco's lab to recover. It took me 4 months to look for a large number of publications, finish the rest of the review, and revised the manuscript for 6-7 times according to Francisco's comments. That was the happiest moment in my life: I slept during the day, but I drove to school at 4 PM and worked till 7 AM. The whole building was so quite, and I could really concentrate on reading and writing. When I felt hungry, I then drove out to have some fast foods. I could see the color of the night, I could sense that I was approaching the realization of the paper. A few classmates laughed at me, saying that I’m writing papers without doing research, but my answer was that "The objective of my PhD education is not to be a data-recording machine, but to become a true scholar!" Table A-6 The outline of the “Chemistry of Organic Molecules on Solid Surfaces” review by Z. Ma and F. Zaera [60] 1. Introduction 2. Experimental details 3. Organic chemistry on model metal surfaces 3.1. General considerations 3.2. Oxidative additions 3.2.1. Carbon-hydrogen activation in saturated alkanes 3.2.2. Carbon-hydrogen activation in other hydrocarbons 3.2.3. Carbon-halogen activation 3.2.4. Carbon-carbon activation 3.2.5. Oxygen-hydrogen activation and other deprotonations 3.3. Hydride and other eliminations 3.3.1. b-hydride elimination 3.3.2. a- and g- hydride eliminations 3.3.3. Alkyl and halide eliminations 3.4. Reductive eliminations 3.4.1. Recombinations between hydrocarbon moieties and hydrogen 3.4.2. Self-couplings 3.4.3. Cross and intramolecular couplings 3.4.4. Alkyne cyclotrimerization and other oligomerizations 3.5. Migratory insertions and extrusions 3.5.1. Carbene and olefin insertions 3.5.2. Oxygen and carbonyl insertions 3.5.3. Decarbonylation and other extrusions 3.6. Isomerizations 3.7. Chiral surface chemistry 3.7.1. Intrinsically chiral metal surfaces 3.7.2. Chiral surface templating 3.7.3. Chiral surface complexation 4. Organic chemistry on model surfaces of other solids 4.1. General considerations 4.2. Organic chemistry on metal oxides 4.3. Organic chemistry on metal carbides, nitrides, sulfides, and phosphides 4.4. Organic chemistry on semiconductors 5. Organic chemistry on more realistic systems 5.1. General considerations 5.2. Bridging the pressure gap 5.2.1. High pressure kinetics and in-situ spectroscopies 5.2.2. Demanding vs. mild reactions: role of carbonaceous deposits 5.2.3. Solid-liquid interfaces 5.3. Bridging the materials gap 5.3.1. Bimetallic metal surfaces 5.3.2. Oxygen or hydroxyl modified metal surfaces 5.3.3. Supported metal particles and clusters 6. Concluding remarks 6.1. Contrast between surface and organometallic and organic chemistry 6.2. Relevance to applied catalysis 6.3. Relevance to materials science 6.4. Future directions 7. In closing... Acknowledgements References Table A-6 presents an outline of that paper. At this point, it is not a barrier for me to write review any longer, and in retrospect, I went a long way which is really formidable at the first sight. So, what did I learn from Francisco? Actually he mainly changed the style of presentation without changing too much of my basic writing idea. However, he has at least several contributions here. (1) Francisco changed the title of that review from "Selectivity in Catalysis: A Molecular-Level Understanding from Surface-Science Studies"; to "Organic Chemistry on Solid Surfaces", which is more appropriate and easier to focus. After that change, he also wrote a preliminary outline of the Introduction section, starting from the discussion of inorganic chemistry on solid surfaces, and then focused on the organic chemistry. I then expanded this Introduction, and added numerous references to support the presentation. (2) Francisco asked me to made numerous changes including deleting some paragraphs, adding new materials, and switching the order, etc. What’s more, he also asked me to add several figures chosen by him. These figures are valuable additions to the draft written by myself. (3) During that stage, I was forced to use Endnote to process the reference otherwise it is impossible to do this time-consuming and laborious job. I again started from scratch and gradually knew how to use that software by self-study. What are the selling points or personalities here? (1) This is a comprehensive review with about 1300 references. Numerous references are quite new, and were never included in previous review articles. This comprehensive review is complementary, but not similar to, Francisco’s previous review on Progress in Surface Science where kinetics, dynamics, fundamental surface mechanism, and inorganic reactions are discussed [53]. (2) The style of presentation is superb here. There different styles of reviews and accounts in literature: (a) talking about the experimental details of the authors’ papers one more time, such as the position and the assignment of the peaks [42; 61]; (b) summarizing what was done in the filed like putting together the records from Chemical Abstracts [62]; (c) distilling the most important and relevant information, and introducing the science like writing textbooks using an easy language so that even college students can understand what is talked about [43; 63; 64]; (d) writing super long reviews that at the end the reader cannot remember what was talked about before [65]; (e) writing critical reviews by raising thoughts and arguments from time to time, so that it is hard to understand without prior reading of the original publications cited therein [66; 67]. In the current review, I attempted to use the style (c) I mentioned above. (3) The self-coupling, cross-coupling, carbene insertion, and oxygen insertion sections were not previously reviewed as such. The chemistry there is not only interesting, but also comprehensively generalized. (4) The figures used there were also quite well chosen. When choosing figures, I want to make sure (a) they are straightforward and of high quality; (b) the styles of them should be evenly distributed: some figures report the reaction mechanisms, some figures report key evidence for proposed mechanisms or reaction steps, and some figures show the experimental apparatus. Particular interesting are figures looking like Japanese cartoons, which can absolutely catch the reader’s eyes, and help with the conveying of ideas. (5) The Concluding Remarks section was well written and can indeed exhibit the authors’ deep understanding and so-called “academic ability”. This section was divided into four parts: (a) contrast between surface and organometallic and organic chemistry; (b) relevance to applied catalysis; (c) relevance to materials science; (d) future directions. For instance, in the first part, to say there are indeed similarities between surface organic chemistry and organic chemistry catalyzed by organometallics, I compared a figure published by Science [68] and another figure published by Journal of the American Chemical Society [69]. Those authors, Bino et al. [68] and Chiang et al. [69] did not cite each other’s papers, but based on reading through a large number of papers, I found the similarity between the coupling mechanism proposed in these different papers, and brought this similarity to the attention of the reader. This distilling process needs some “academic ability”, and is original. Nobody ever put these figures together, and they are brand new papers published very recently. (6) Finally, after the submission of our review article, I also kept on monitoring literatures posted on ACS and Elsevier web pages everyday, and timely added new references when we received the comments from reviewers. [ Last edited by berlin on 2006-11-13 at 17:22 ] |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
中国水产科学研究院黄海水产研究所博士后科研工作站2026年博士后招收公告
已经有0人回复
-
大连海事大学国家级人才团队2026年博士研究生招生启事（氢能）
已经有10人回复
-
专业论文润色/翻译怎么收费?
已经有270人回复
-
国家级人才课题组招收2026年入学博士
已经有6人回复
-
意大利米兰理工大学急聘CSC公派留学博士生（物理或无机材料科学方向）
已经有47人回复
-
求加氢处理工艺与工程（第二版）pdf 李大东 中国石化出版社 9787511436689
已经有0人回复
-
新加坡ASTAR招收CSC或学校资助联培博士生/访问学生
已经有2人回复
-
求助Amsterdam Density Functional
已经有3人回复
-
Postdoctoral Research Fellow Position in Causal Inference Weill CorneIl Medicine
已经有8人回复
-
武汉纺织大学全国重点实验室陈嵘教授团队招收2026级学术/专业型硕士研究生
已经有0人回复
rabbit7708
荣誉版主 (职业作家)
心虫
- 应助: 0 (幼儿园)
- 贵宾: 3.109
- 金币: 6404.6
- 红花: 10
- 帖子: 3094
- 在线: 5.9小时
- 虫号: 76692
- 注册: 2005-06-25
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 催化
- 管辖: 催化
2楼2006-09-13 12:58:22
3楼2006-09-13 13:36:06
1
 |
4楼2006-09-13 14:17:28
10