Post Tagged with: "JACS"

Eye-Test Abstracts

Readers: have you noticed the new trend in graphical abstracts? Seems to me that more and more choose the “coloring book” route. (I’ve written about this a few times at Just Like Cooking, but I’ve decided to up the ante and broaden the discussion audience over here)

When designing talks and posters, most chemists will tell you to use color sparingly, say, to accent a particular functional group, or to draw the eye to a key concept. Many shy away from color schemes that won’t translate well at a distance, such as white-on-black, or black-on-orange…

J. Am. Chem. Soc., ASAP, 2012

Marketers have long understood that human beings respond strongly to primary colors; it’s no secret that Coca-Cola and McDonald’s both advertise with bright red signs. But for organic chemistry? If your reaction or concept truly breaks new ground, won’t people recognize it without all the visual hype?

Angew. Chemie, ASAP, 2012

I’m not entirely sure what’s driving this – desire to have your chemistry noticed on a crowded page? Viewers transitioning to mobile phone apps, where your abstract (presumably) fights for space amongst highly-colored games and ads? ‘Artistic’ sensibilities?

Organometallics ASAP, 2012

Readers, what are your thoughts? Do you color in your reaction schemes? Do you find colored abstracts appealing, or annoying?

Update (04/20/12) – Almost forgot Nature Chem’s coverage of the abstract issue. Thanks, Stu!

By April 20, 2012 10 comments Uncategorized

Most Popular Chemistry Papers 2010 (1/3)

There are finally enough people visiting ChemFeeds (~150/day) that metrics like most accessed chemistry paper might actually be statistically significant information. So below I present the top two most clicked on abstracts from ChemFeeds for the first third of 2010.

First Place: Emil Knoevenagel and the Roots of Aminocatalysis
by Benjamin List in Angewandte Chemie International Edition
(DOI: 10.1002/anie.200906900)

2nd Place: Total Synthesis of the N,C-Coupled Naphthylisoquinoline Alkaloids Ancistrocladinium A and B and Related Analogues
by Gerhard Bringmann, Tanja Gulder†, Barbara Hertlein, Yasmin Hemberger and Frank Meyer in Journal of American Chemical Society
(DOI: 10.1021/ja9097687)

Some Notes on the metrics. This information probably says more about the people visiting ChemFeeds than the quality of the papers. It would appear ChemFeeds visitors skewer heavily towards the organic synthetics. Perhaps with the recent addition of being able to click on category feeds like all materials and all physical feeds it’ll balance out.

Mitch

By May 1, 2010 2 comments chem 2.0

Is Chemistry Incompatible with Web 2.0?

(This post is in response to the April 19 editorial in C&E News.  For the response to the May 10 editorial, click here)

A recent ChemJobber post notes that C&E News Editor-in-Chief Rudy Baum‘s editorials sometimes have a tendency to approach the controversial – and sometimes the purely political.  I wanted to discuss this weeks editorial which threatens to call into question much of my online existence (sorry, Mitch.  If Rudy’s right, I think you’re about to spontaneously e-implode).

In this week’s editorial, “The Limits of Web 2.0,” Baum decries the cliché “information wants to be free” for both its out-of-context usage (the full quote says information wants to be expensive because it is valuable and free because the cost of information dissemination is shrinking almost hourly – thus a struggle) and for its lunacy (information can’t wish for anything – it’s inanimate).  Rather, Baum says that it’s people who wish that information would be free.  I’d amend Baum’s correction slightly.  People really want information to be free and readily accessible.  I’d argue public libraries have long made most information “free,” if you were willing to do the legwork to get it.

But the bulk of Baum’s editorial promotes Jaron Lanier’s book You are Not a Gadget: A Manefesto, and summarizes Lanier’s main points, namely that the wisdom of crowds can be dangerous and science should be loath to adopt web 2.0 ideals.  Lanier points out that around the turn of century, a “torrent (a word hijacked by the web 2.0 crowd -ed.) of petty designs sometimes called web 2.0″ flooded the web.  And through the use of web 2.0, we apparently are losing sight of the trees for the forest, er, the taggers for the cloud.

Baum writes in his editorial (cross-posted for free on the web 2.0 CENtral Science blog, natch), “The essence of what Lanier is saying is that individuals are important and that we’re losing sight of that at our own peril in elevating the wisdom of the crowd to a higher plane than the creativity of a single person.”  That is, we are valuing the cloud more than the individuals, when the cloud can’t exist – and has no meaning – without the existence of the individuals.  Lanier notes that collective intelligence can be used well, but only when guided by individuals who can direct the course of the hive mind and help steer clear of common groupthink pitfalls.

But the most interesting quote comes near then end, when Baum quotes Lanier as saying that scientific communities “achieve quality through a cooperative process that includes checks and balances, and ultimately rests on a foundation of goodwill and ‘blind’ elitism.”  I’m not really sure what that means…

But to Lanier’s thesis that science ought to be wary of embracing web 2.0 and its ideals, I find it interesting that Baum writes his editorial at C&E News, the magazine of the ACS, whose flagship publication, the Journal of the American Chemical Society, has featured a JACSβ page for some time now.  The same C&E News whose blog has become so popular that it had to split off into several child blogs.  Where each post for each ACS article has links to share the article on one of several social networking sites.  Where scientists can now browse their favorite article on their iphones with ACSMobile.  While perhaps late to the party in some areas, the American Chemical Society has certainly ‘logged on’ to web 2.0 as a way to export content to the web-savvy scientist.

Plus, we have our own Mitch, a one man walking encapsulation of web 2.0.  His most successful application is, in my opinion, the chemical forums, which typically sees between 8,000 and 11,000 visitors per day.  This blog seems to be a big hit, and his ChemFeeds is a one-stop source for your aggregated list of your favorite journals’ graphical abstracts.  All this innovation on Mitch’s part earned him an interview with David Bradley (of ScienceBase) in his chemistry WebMagazine, Reactive Reports.

There’s also the Chemistry Reddit as another outlet of chemistry news and notes.

In the inaugural issue of Nature Chemistry, the Nature Publishing Group recounted how they have completely bought into web 2.0 as a means of science communication – each issue of Nature Chemistry even features a roundup of their favorite posts from the chemical blogosphere (which reminds me, to the left, Mitch has also created an aggregated rss feed of several popular chemistry blogs).

And, of course, web 2.0 in the sciences has been discussed in the blogs several times over the years.  We have over 3 pages of posts categorized Web 2.0, mostly Mitch’s posts on new web 2.0 platforms he’s developed.  Jean-Claude Bradley writes about web 2.0 in response to a very interesting post at Nascent, a blog from the folks at Nature.

So, all of these prove that web 2.0 has been talked about many times in the context of science.  Has it worked?  With the exception of blogs, sadly I’m inclined to say no.  At least not yet.  And even with blogs (with the possible exception of All Things Metathesis, and In the Pipeline, though Derek isn’t allowed to talk about his work b/c of intellectual property issues), not a lot of academic or industry leaders are prone to blogging.  It’s not like we’re reading Phil Baran’s blog and getting inside his head on a daily basis.

Sure, there is a subculture of people who are active on the web 2.0 scene, but it surely hasn’t taken off as a medium for all chemists to enjoy.  It theoretically should.  Chemists are always benefited from communal sharing of results and information.  But there are still (and probably always will be) people who seem reluctant to join the new technological paradigm.  I like the way Timo Hannay words it in his post on Nascent,

“But it’s not up to the doubters to ‘get it’, it is up to those of us who support these developments to demonstrate their value. And if we can’t then they don’t deserve to be adopted and we don’t deserve to be heard.”

Especially if there are people at the position of Editor-in-Chief for arguably the top chemistry magazine denouncing the web 2.0 movement, clearly it has a ways to go before it will be appreciated by all to the point where web 2.0 is ‘taken for granted,’ where we don’t even realize what we’re doing when we post results and opinions via web 2.0 technologies.

Let’s get moving!

This Message Will Self-Heal in 3, 2, 1…


Cassandra Fraser

Recently, Cassandra Fraser’s group reported on a very cool property, reversible mechanochromic luminescence, observed in an easy to make material.[JACS] The molecule of interest is the difluoroboron complex of avobenzone (BF2AVB), that UV absorbing molecule in your sunscreen minus the boron and fluorines.

In broad general language, mechanochromic luminescence describes the ability of some materials to change colors after scratching under UV light. The image below shows BF2AVB coated on weighing paper (A), a cotton swab is used to write “Light” (B), the surface is hit with a heat-gun (C), the surface is ready to be written on again with a cotton swab (D).

The image brings up all kinds of creative ways to write secret messages, especially as the letters will fade over time even without using a heat gun. But before the CIA intelligence wonks in the audience get ahead of themselves the material doesn’t seem to be completely reversible at room temperature without annealing.

…even a small mechanical perturbation, such as a slight touch with the tip of a cotton swab, changed the green-blue BF2AVB film emission to yellow. The yellow emission gradually reverted back to green again at room temperature, with much faster recovery at elevated temperature. The written regions were no longer readable after annealing.



The field has, in short order, gotten tantalizingly close to a 100% reversible mechanochromic luminescent material at room temperature. Congrats!

Link to article: Polymorphism and Reversible Mechanochromic Luminescence for Solid-State Difluoroboron Avobenzone

Sam covered one of the first entrants to reversible mechanochromic luminescence a year ago: reversible mechanochromic luminescence is cool

Mitch

Update and Correction: Cassandra Fraser has corrected me, apparently the wording of the paper was just awkward to my ear, the material is fully reversible at room temperature!

By February 12, 2010 3 comments materials chemistry