24小时热门版块排行榜    

查看: 2826  |  回复: 7

有机fly2010

铜虫 (正式写手)

[求助] Organic letters悲剧,一个8分,一个6分, 已有1人参与

副主编拒稿,主要问题在机理不清楚,这种情况能不能补充机理后重投呢?

发自小木虫IOS客户端
回复此楼
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

hncfdxcfbs

禁虫 (职业作家)

★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★
感谢参与,应助指数 +1
有机fly2010(秋天白云代发): 金币+1, 感谢交流! 2016-02-10 20:54:18
有机fly2010: 金币+9, ★★★很有帮助 2016-02-11 15:04:57
本帖内容被屏蔽

2楼2016-02-10 18:42:02
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
本帖仅楼主可见
3楼2016-02-10 20:34:06
已阅   申请SEPI   回复此楼   编辑   查看我的主页

有机fly2010

铜虫 (正式写手)

引用回帖:
2楼: Originally posted by hncfdxcfbs at 2016-02-10 18:42:02
副主编拒稿,主要问题在机理不清楚,这种情况能不能补充机理后重投呢?

答案是肯定的
补充机理后可以重新投稿
投稿的时候
coverletter里面记得写明以前投稿情况
现在做了什么改进
这样有助于尽快审稿和尽快 ...

Your manuscript has been evaluated with the assistance of two referees in the field. Unfortunately, one reviewer criticized the lack of the urgency and novelty of this manuscript. In particular, the reviewer criticized the doubtful mechanism of the reaction. In view of the reviewer recommendations and my own examination of the manuscript, I regret that I cannot accept your manuscript for publication in Organic Letters. I am sorry to disappoint you, but Organic Letters now receives so many excellent papers that we regret that we cannot accept many of these. I trust you understand and I hope that the review comments will be useful for your future research and submission in other Journal..
说实话没信心投了,后面几句话有点绝

发自小木虫IOS客户端
4楼2016-02-11 15:08:32
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

hncfdxcfbs

禁虫 (职业作家)

本帖内容被屏蔽

5楼2016-02-11 15:13:21
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

yangzhouwang

至尊木虫 (著名写手)

引用回帖:
4楼: Originally posted by 有机fly2010 at 2016-02-11 15:08:32
Your manuscript has been evaluated with the assistance of two referees in the field. Unfortunately, one reviewer criticized the lack of the urgency and novelty of this manuscript. In particular, the ...

不要被编辑的信影响到,有些话是统一的格式,按照修改意见修改继续投递,应该有希望的。

发自小木虫Android客户端
6楼2016-02-11 15:21:46
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

有机fly2010

铜虫 (正式写手)

引用回帖:
2楼: Originally posted by hncfdxcfbs at 2016-02-10 18:42:02
副主编拒稿,主要问题在机理不清楚,这种情况能不能补充机理后重投呢?

答案是肯定的
补充机理后可以重新投稿
投稿的时候
coverletter里面记得写明以前投稿情况
现在做了什么改进
这样有助于尽快审稿和尽快 ...

这是两个审稿人的回复
Reviewer: 1

Recommendation: Publish after minor revisions noted.

Comments to the Author:
This is an interesting paper worthy of publication in Organic Letters. It describes an original and efficient a photoredox protocol for the synthesis of ****. The present work is performed under mild oxidative conditions which show highly compatible with various functional groups. In the presence of over-stoichiometric **, some of substrates could be directly converted to** derivatives with high regioselectivity. The work is thorough and well done and the structure of the product 5a is further confirmed by X-ray. However, the authors are requested to revise their manuscript by considering the following points.
1)    Scheme 2, the yield of B-d2 should be given.
2)    In the mechanism, it is not so logical that radical 10 is trapped by ** to release ***. Radical 10 is probably SET reduced by excited Ru* to form an enolated anion, followed by protonation to give product 11. Generally, the SET reduction of*** by photocatalyst will genereate**radical, which could be further reduced to **.
3)   ***were proposed as the key intermediated based on the result of two control experiments. I would suggest the authors to do another control experiment, using isolated compound 11 under standard condition to check whether it could be converted to furan or not. Radical 10 could isomerize to an*** radical, which undergoes an intramolecular cycloaddition to form intermediate 14 directly.
4)    Table 1, it would be better if the authors could perform the control experiments after the optimized conditions were confirmed.
5)    There are also some typos in the manuscript, such as scheme 1c, “ROH”, and table 1, “R= X= H” (“X” should be “CH”).


Additional Questions:
Are there elements of novelty and urgency that warrant rapid communication of the work?: Yes

Is the scope / significance appropriate for the readership of Organic Letters?: Yes

If portions of the work have been previously reported, does the present manuscript represent a substantial extension of the work rather than a fragmentary increment?: No

Does this work represent a logical extension of related studies that is better suited for a full article?: No

Are the experimental results adequately documented and is sufficient detail provided to allow reproduction of the work?: Yes

Is adequate characterization provided for representative compounds with regard to identity and purity?: Yes

Are the literature references appropriate and correct?: Yes

Rate the overall importance of this paper to the field of organic chemistry (10 - High Importance / 1 - Low Importance): 8


Reviewer: 2

Recommendation: The manuscript does not meet the requirements of urgency and novelty that justify publication as a Communication.

Comments to the Author:
The manuscript by ** and coworkers reports on a photochemical synthesis of ***. The reaction is of relatively broad scope, although certain arene substitution is helpful. In general, it compliments other furane cyclization reactions outlined in Scheme 1. Overall, this is a densely written mansucript with a lot of text information. The synthetic aspects (Tables 2-4) are fine, although the reaction times are very long. This qould require reasoning within the discussion, which is not given. My major concern rests with the mechanistic context from Scheme 2. First, the Scheme is barely visible. Secondly, the mechanistic context is extremely complex. I doubt that the postulated cycles can stand. Please note that reaction time sin the range of several days do not coincide with such a complex scenario. The authors should at least demonstrate that some isolated intermediates can be submitted to the main reaction without problem. As to other points, I do not understand the rationlization of the role of**as a base. For example, at stage 9, ** should rather add to the intermediate benzylic cation than inducing an elimination. Compound 11 is deconjugated; the corresponding isomerization to an**intermediate should be preferred, particularly under visible light conditions. Two photocatalytic cycles are not closed throughout the Scheme 2 (steps from 11 to 12 and 15 to 2a). The subsequent SET do not oxidize Ru back – what are the mechanisms closing the cycles?
The review by Krause (Chem Rev 2011, 111, 1994) should be added to the introduction. Generally, the authors omit most of the reviews on general reactivity in the fields of furane cyclization and photochemistry. An update would be required.
In the SI, mp and IR are missing for all new compounds. 19F NMR data should be included, where applicable.
Overall, this is an interesting transformation, but the mechanistic section is far too preliminary. I suggest expanding the work to full paper and include control experiments to arrive at reliable mechanistic insight.


Additional Questions:
Are there elements of novelty and urgency that warrant rapid communication of the work?: No

Is the scope / significance appropriate for the readership of Organic Letters?: Yes

If portions of the work have been previously reported, does the present manuscript represent a substantial extension of the work rather than a fragmentary increment?:

Does this work represent a logical extension of related studies that is better suited for a full article?: Yes

Are the experimental results adequately documented and is sufficient detail provided to allow reproduction of the work?: Yes

Is adequate characterization provided for representative compounds with regard to identity and purity?: No

Are the literature references appropriate and correct?: No

Rate the overall importance of this paper to the field of organic chemistry (10 - High Importance / 1 - Low Importance): 6

不打算重投OL了  请看看投欧洲化学怎么样,希望大不大?
7楼2016-02-18 18:00:07
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

caishy05

铜虫 (初入文坛)

引用回帖:
7楼: Originally posted by 有机fly2010 at 2016-02-18 18:00:07
这是两个审稿人的回复
Reviewer: 1

Recommendation: Publish after minor revisions noted.

Comments to the Author:
This is an interesting paper worthy of publication in Organic Letters. It descri ...

楼上的,是哪个副主编管的呢??
坚持就是胜利
8楼2016-03-16 14:24:39
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
相关版块跳转 我要订阅楼主 有机fly2010 的主题更新
信息提示
请填处理意见