32 comments By Cesar
The only solution is double blind and full review of all papers. 10 years ago I receive reviewers rejection but it was never got rejection by the editor. Now, I have seen rejections in hours and editor rejection against reviewers opinion.
It is interesting the double standard of these zeolots of money influence. None rejects the money from governments whom spy, wage war, promote fake science with political aims, etc. In the biased mind of this people, the money of North Korea government is pure while that of an oil company is evil.
Call me a simple electrochemist, but if a molecule is oxidized (or reduced) something has to be reduced (or oxidized). In pure water which is the actual reductan or oxidant¿. The reference to enzymes is disingeneous. The problem is not kinetics but thermodynamics.
The plain answer is NO. Not only reactions is not what chemistry is all about but it would be very surprising of a researcher in organic chemistry to know that he is just finding new examples of known reactions (quite unpublishable). The concept reminds me of Michelson comment (wrongly attributed to Lord Kelvin) that all physics was done in 1900.
The IARC has been completely discredited as evaluation body due to conflict of interests, ideological bias and pure ignorance. If CW believe in them, they should stop eating meat or drinking hot beverages!!!
I think the biased comments on other countries political developments have no place in Chemistry World. First, the police today obeys a president of PDMB which is center left, far from Bolsonaro's. Second it is possible for the Ministry of Science to be eliminated which will leave Brazil in the same situation than UK or USA. Next, according to poolers 79% of Bolsonaro's voters were more educated citizens from the richer south while 89% of the opposition votes come from poor, less educated North. Why is that? Because they reject highly corrupt left and center left politicians.
As a researcher from an emerging country, I think the main responsability if reviewer fatigue resides with editors. On one side the silly rejection by the editor, without ground has become increasingly common. However, I made more than my share of reviews (e.g. 48 reviews in 3 years for a 4.5 impact factor journal) without any reward. For example the editor could award open acesss after a number of reviews. Or do not evaluate papers of authors which reject more than a number of reviews. I also find out that I only receive for review papers from emerging countries. No papers from Europe or Usa. Strange because during my postdoc in Switzertland I receive papers from usa and europe.
Interesting. Where and when such strategy worked out?
If the source of the funding is relevant to the outcome, the conclusions are untrue. Then, how we are protected from ideological bias? And what about state funding, the major player on most countries? All papers calling for more regulations or in any way increase the role of the state are suspected?
Right. If John Holdren is the best you can get as science adviser, potus can do without. A plasma physicist who "advise" on population, climate change, etc. having no degree or evidence on the subject. Absurd predictions and policies like dosing drinking water with anticonceptives.
Quite strange reading of "the selfish gene". I do not know anybody who understand Dawkins model as some kind of sci fi replication game. Most understand it as a mechanism of evolution with influence on family, survival, group behaviour, etc. It is obvious in the book that the whole orgánism is required.
Nice work but somewhat strange. The key question in Haber process is temperature not pressure since the reaction is reversible and exothermic. Increasing temperature decrease the equilibrium reaction. The catalyst described here works at 400 oC which is around the temperature of the commercial process. Therefore the equilibrium constant should be similar. Pressure is used to shift the equilibrium to ammonia. At low pressure the yield would be negligible. Am I wrong?
CW still fail in carbohydrate science. Fructose is a natural sugar present in pommegranate (the original source of grenadine) while high fructose corn syrup is a cheap conction made by enzymatic isomerization of glucose, obtained from corn starch (not just hydrolysis). HFC is the villain of obesity epidemy in the world not fructose.
Trehalose is used as food additive as cryopreservant because it is less sweet than sucrose at low concentrations. Since it has always been present, the linkage to mutant epidemic could be a statistical serendipity (remember glyphosate and autism) since it is widely used in microorganism growth, to allow lyophylization, without reported contamination with mutant bacteria. As a RSC member I expect Chemistry World to correct the errors in the note...
It would be advisable that Chemistry World hire some scientists to write notes instead of "science journalists" that obvioulsy do not know chemistry. Trehalose does not give Maillard reaction because it has a 1,1' glucosydic bond. The same bond(but with different sugars) than sucrose, which also do not give Maillard. Trehalose is a natural compound, in fact is extracted from starch, therefore it has always been present.
The IPCC whom I suppose is an authority in climate change, clearly stated that extreme events are NOT affected by climate change. Therefore the article is just garbage....
In fact, the famous Erin Brockovich was a typical ambulance chaser and real science shows that Hinckley had less cancer cases than similar cities and chromium VI in water (unlike as airborne particles) has been proved not carcinogenic, at least because it is unlikely to survive in presence of organic substances. It is a pity that Chemistry World did not check the science insidd the articles.
If the situation is actually as described in the note, the retraction of the papers is not enough. The principal author fake the address and wrote the fake review to mislead the journals. Why we should believe in the data if he fakes the documents? He should be banned from publishing for some time (at least 3 years) and then be subjected to special scrutiny. Otherwise he learns nothing, as it can be seen from his comments, and he will do that again until is caught.
Quite strange proposition. First it acknowledged that Exxon scientists do science even against the interest of the company. Therefore, all the crazy business about disclosing the minimal funding from industry as a conflict of interest should be over. Moreover, government paid scientist routinely make opinion pieces on politics claiming a greater government role. It is not a conflict of interest? The public opinion of the company is obviously related to its interests and not the "general" interest and nobody ever think otherwise.
Nice article, very good in historical data. Unfortunately, the chemistry is weak. The role of chloride ions is not to "make room for more gold ions" but to change the potential of the redox reaction. The electrode potential of nitric acid reduction is 0.96 while the oxidation of gold to Au+3 is 1.52, therefore it is not spontaneous. On the other hand, the oxidation to Au(Cl-)4 has a potential of only 0.93 V, because the equilibrium shifts the potential. Therefore, the dissolution of gold in aqua regia is spontaneous (note that high Cl- concentration increaes the cell voltage).