VOLUME 67, NUMBER 1
JANUARY 11, 2002
© Copyright 2002 by the American Chemical Society
Editorial Thanks to the creative leadership of its editors, most recently Clayton Heathcock and Peter Stang, The Journal of Organic Chemistry (JOC) continues to be the most respected and cited journal in its field. During the past decade, JOC greatly expanded the scope of its coverage as new sub-disciplines of research in organic chemistry gained prominence. The Journal enthusiastically entered the new world of electronic publishing, often pioneering the introduction of new electronic services. As changes continue at a breathtaking pace, the basic goals of JOC remain unchangedsto keep abreast of new and exciting developments in organic chemistry by providing the international community of organic chemists with a state-of-the-art high-quality forum for publication of their research promptly and responsively. As an additional service to our authors, JOC began to accept manuscripts over the Web in April of 2000. The popularity of Web-based submissions has increased rapidly, and they now constitute over 50% of all new manuscripts received for review. Submissions over the Web, coupled with electronic reviews, correction of galley proofs electronically, and publication of articles on the Web within 4 days of receiving the corrected galley proofs, can dramatically reduce the publication time for manuscripts. While electronic processing of manuscripts benefits all authors, the reductions in publication time are especially notable for international submissions. As an example, a recent manuscript from Australia, which was submitted and processed electronically, was published as an Article one month after being received in the JOC office, with no associated expenses for express mailing. Electronic publishing also affords opportunities for reducing publication costs, which can be reinvested in enhancements for JOC, such as recent provisions for the use of color in Articles and Notes, when warranted, at no charge to the authors. A recent Editorial (January 8, 1999) discussed how Supporting Information (SI) can be used for descriptions of experimental procedures as a way to reduce publication costs, and we encourage authors to continue to make use of SI for some of their experimental protocols and data. Since the editorial was published, an increasing number of authors have placed some or all of their Experimental Section in SI. Typically, those
aspects of experimental descriptions most likely to have wide appeal can be included in the Experimental Section, while those that appeal to the specialist can be presented in SI. Appropriate examples of material that can be placed in SI are the descriptions typically found in the “general” part of the Experimental Section, lists of spectral data, repeated examples of a more general protocol, and routine steps in a multistep synthesis. Descriptions of new reactions, unusual protocols, and key steps in a multistep synthesis that are of more widespread interest should be placed in the Experimental Section. Increases in both the number of submissions to the journal and the length of manuscripts continue to put pressure on publication costs. Until now, there have been no guidelines for the length of Notes beyond a description as “concise accounts of studies of a limited scope.” Some Notes recently published in JOC are longer than a typical article. Beginning with this issue, Notes will be restricted to four journal pages (approximately 16 double-spaced manuscript pages, including references, tables, and graphics). I also want to draw authors’ attention to an editorial first published in the March 18, 1990, issue of JOC on the topic of being concise when preparing manuscripts. These comments continue to be a useful guide for preparing manuscripts, and appropriate sections are reproduced after this editorial. In the past, a staff member in the journal editorial office was assigned to prepare a “Compound Characterization Checklist” for each manuscript from information given in the Experimental Section and SI to assist reviewers in their evaluation. In an effort to reduce publication costs and speed up processing of manuscripts, authors are now being asked to complete and submit a Compound Characterization Checklist with their manuscript. The process of filling in the checklist can also alert authors to items that are important for the review process that they may have inadvertently omitted. JOC has had a longstanding policy that requires authors to rigorously characterize all new compounds. We believe this is central to ensuring that work published in the journal can be reproduced as described. As the field of organic chemistry has expanded to embrace new developments in biology, material science, and combina-
10.1021/jo012971i CCC: $22.00 © 2002 American Chemical Society Published on Web 01/04/2002
2
J. Org. Chem., Vol. 67, No. 1, 2002
torial chemistry, the structures and, in some cases, the amounts available of many of the compounds described in the journal are not amenable to analysis by techniques traditionally used for organic compounds. The criteria, in the 2002 Guidelines for Authors, for establishing structure and purity are designed to provide authors with flexibility in meeting the requirements while maintaining the necessary rigor. Inclusion of scanned copies of 1H and 13C NMR spectra for new compounds in SI has become a major part of compound characterization since it was first introduced over 10 years ago. We encourage authors to continue this practice. These spectra constitute a valuable database
for subsequent generations of chemists. However, to be useful, the spectra must be of high quality. When used for purposes of establishing purity, the spectra should be sufficiently well-resolved and have adequate low noise in the baseline to detect small amounts of impurities. Finally, implementing the new innovations in electronic submission, review, and publishing, production of author-submitted cover art, and support for the new editorial offices have been accomplished only through the dedication, creative insight, and hard work of the staff of the Publications Division and the JOC production team. On behalf of the editors of the JOC, I want to thank them for their outstanding efforts. C. Dale Poulter, Editor-in-Chief 3 December 2001
From Clayton H. Heathcock’s March 18, 1990, JOC Editorial “Following are some guidelines and comments about appropriate length and suggestions for condensations that are often possible in various parts of a typical manuscript. Introduction. Usually 1-1.5 typewritten pages of text accompanied by 1-2 rows of structures in a scheme or in equations is appropriate. Results and Discussion. Abstain from verbosity. For example, avoid the reiteration of straightforward synthetic sequences that are adequately described in flow charts or restating data that are obvious from a table. In such cases, considerable space can be conserved if the author comments only on the unusual transformations or the data that are essential to an argument. General Experimental Section. Authors should use a General Experimental section to give common procedures and conditions. For example, many synthetic papers consume considerable space with repetitious descriptions of routine procedures, such as “the solvent was removed with a rotary evaporator” or “the solution was dried over MgSO4”. One can save significant space by giving this information in the General Experimental section. It is Journal policy not to publish the names of common analytical instruments, standard spectral calibrations, or generally accepted format for presenting spectral data. In many cases, a reference to a previous publication may suffice for the general experimental procedures employed in the research. Experimental Section. If a procedure is used more than once, the manuscript should include only one representative, detailed description of the procedure. Analogous ones should be abbreviated to give significant differences (reaction times, molar ratios, purification methods) along with the usual characterizing analytical data. Complete descriptions of apparatus and procedural details should be avoided unless precise adherence to a protocol or type of apparatus is essential to the success of the reaction being described. For example, the passage Into a flame-dried, 100-mL, three-necked, roundbottomed flask equipped with a magnetic stirring bar and a nitrogen inlet was placed a solution of 9.6 g (0.1 mol) of cyclohexanone in 50 mL of ether. To the stirring solution, under nitrogen, was added 3.8 g (0.1 mol) of lithium aluminum hydride. The solution was refluxed for 30 min.
Can be replaced by A solution of 9.6 g (0.1 mol) of cyclohexanone and 3.8 g (0.1 mol) of LiAlH4 in 50 mL of ether was refluxed under N2 for 30 min. with essentially no loss of content. Use formulas instead of compound names in the Experimental Section. For example, if we systematically use CH2Cl2, MgSO4, NaHCO3, LiAlH4, etc., instead of the spelled out names, we might trim two dozen pages a year. This is also true for standard abbreviations for common reagents such as THF, HMPA, and LDA. However, it is important that with abbreviations the full name be spelled out the first time it is used [i.e., “tetrahydrofuran (THF)”]. Do not list unnecessary spectral data: extensive lists of IR data and proton NMR data [3.42-4.23 (6, m)] are not really of much use. In fact, in many cases, the most useful data are a complete list of carbon NMR resonances and characteristic proton NMR and IR data. A full data set can be appended in Supporting Information. Tables, Schemes, Figures. These should be laid out in a space-efficient manner. Judicious use of R groups may avoid repetition of similar structures. If cameraready structures are provided, take care to use the onecolumn format specified in the Guidelines for Authors. Footnotes and References. Avoid unnecessarily long reference lists. In these days of computerized reference collections, it is all too easy to search a database for a subject and just dump all of the hits into the reference list in a manuscript. Authors should be sure that cited references are really pertinent to the subject of the manuscript. Avoid excessive self-citations. When there have been a large number of pertinent publications by the same author, it is usually sufficient to cite the first (so as to give proper credit for seminal contributions) and last publication. Lengthy descriptive footnotes relating unsuccessful experiments or results of marginal importance should be condensed or deleted. Supporting Information. Authors are encouraged to make greater use of this method of archiving data. Relevant compounds reported in Supporting Information are indexed for Chemical Abstracts and assigned Registry Numbers, even if they are not mentioned in the Article itself. Supporting Information provides an ideal method to present model studies, unsuccessful synthetic approaches, additional spectral data beyond that contained in the actual manuscript, and extensive tabulations of supporting data.” JO012971I
