Now you can Peer Review for Nature

It looks likes Nature has gone the way of the 21st century and will place preprints of submitted but not yet accepted papers on their servers for public comment to assist the normal peer review process. I think this is a good idea, but the only real issue is getting the public to notice that they started to do this in the first place. The problem with any good on-line idea is gaining the traffic to see your wonderful idea utilized. For example, I wrote a nice script that will nicely format some elementary information of the known isotopes from the most recent atomic mass evaluation 2003, but no one really knows or utilizes it. http://www.isotope-table.com/

You can get to their public review main page from here http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/index.html . You can check out the preprints already posted from this link http://blogs.nature.com/nature/peerreview/trial/. The site diplays articles in blog format. And since I didn’t stumble across this myself but read it from Everyday Scientist you can see their post about it from here http://blog.everydayscientist.com/?p=164.

Finally, since Nature is posting preprints in blog format, we would be able to add these preprints to our forum feed and they would be made more visible in case anyone wanted to comment on them. If you want them added to our forum feed please post here to let me know.


By June 11, 2006 0 comments Uncategorized

No more Chmoogle!

The forces that be (ie Google) have set their sights on Chmoogle and decided to take Chmoogle to court for trademark infringement. Instead of fighting, Chmoogle has relinquished that name and reverted to eMolecules. C&EN has a nice article here:

You can read EMolecules views here:

By June 10, 2006 0 comments Uncategorized

Anonymous Chemistry Bloggers

Here is the inside scoop on the strange and weird world of anonymous chemistry blogging. So, I first noticed anonymous chemistry blogging from http://totallysynthetic.com/blog. The given reason for anonymity, “Well, I’m not giving away my identity for fear of reprisals.” Although, from what I’ve seen of his blog it looks reasonably “clean”. At any rate I’ve figured out who he really is and will share his identity with my small limited audience. His name is **u* *****r**, that’s my hint and you’ll just have to figure out the rest yourself if you are so inclined. Wink

An other anonymous chemistry blogger can be found at Molecule of the Day, http://www.moleculeoftheday.com/. This one did a much better job of protecting their identity. But, he or she did mention to me that they may attend the ACS conference this fall in SF. If they do attend, you can count on me to try to get a photo to share with all of you.

By June 2, 2006 0 comments Uncategorized

Allotropes, Polymorphs, and Isomerism oh my

The term allotrope is one of the most vaguely defined chemical terms still in current use. I can understand how one could call the various forms of sulfur (ie. rhombic and monoclinic) as distinct allotropes. But 2 chemical species that can’t be transformed into each other by physical means just don’t seem to garner the right to be called an allotrope. This issue was recently brought up by Fritnat, http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=8500.0, when he advocated ozone should be called oxygen since it is an “allotrope” of diatomic oxygen.

At any rate you can read more about the wonderful world of allotropism in a recent article by William B. Jensen, http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/Journal/Issues/2006/Jun/abs838.html. It’s a very short read and packed with a historical perspective on the use of the word allotrope. Eventhough, Mr. Jensen never replied to a comment I sent him, I would still recommend everyone read this article. Wink


By June 1, 2006 0 comments Uncategorized