Editorial pubs.acs.org/OPRD
Short Papers for OPRD
E
sources (except perhaps Organic Syntheses). We envision that these articles might eventually form a series of “best practices” for particular types of chemsitry, which would be useful not only in industry but also to the academic community in both research and teaching. I am not suggesting that we need to introduce a new category of paper in OPRD; such a description of a focused piece of work could come under the heading of a Technical Note or Communication. Alternatively, if the short paper is more technology focused, or is predominantly devoted to safety or environmental issues, then it should be submitted as a technology, safety, or environmental report. A short paper could be particularly appropriate for a Special Feature Section, for example, where one step of a synthesis has a focus on a fluorination or a biocatalytic step, or is exothermic and has a potential safety issue. All these topics will have Special Feature Sections in 2014. Many potential authors feel they need to wait until a process story is complete, that leads to an API, agrochemical, or specialty chemical and has been fully developed before being submitted as chemistry for publication. This would mean that it could be years before the work is published. It is also a daunting task to try to summarise a multifaceted project into a single paper, particularly where numerous alternative routes have been investigated or many scientists have contributed, some of whom may no longer be available to supply information and data. Many early steps in the synthesis, which have already been completed and scaled up before the maturity of a process, usually after several chemist-years of development, could be published in the form of shorter papers as described above. At least one advantage would be that the demands on the author would be reduced; the information would be available concurrently, thus making the papers easier to write, instead of having to hunt down reports and documents from years ago. The short paper might also appeal to the engineering community, where a focus on a key unit operation or chemical transformation, from a scale up and manufacturing viewpoint, might be examined in depth. Alternatively, it might appeal to those working in the fine chemicals and intermediates industries, where the synthesis of a key raw material or intermediate for a client could be the focus of the work. I do not want to encourage fragmentation of work, however, where each step of the synthesis is described in a separate paper. This is not acceptable. Nevertheless, in many cases, where a large amount of detailed investigation has gone into the preparation and scale up of an important compound, it would be appropriate to publish such a study as a stand-alone piece of work, even if it involved only a single chemical step. The editors and reviewers will make a judgment call on such short papers on the basis of the level of innovation and suitability for separate publication. The publication of the ‘short paper’ would not necessarily preclude a later publication of the entire process; a truncated treatment of the prior published step in the
ach issue of Organic Process Research and Development (OPRD) comprises a variety of types of manuscript, including Full Papers, Technical Notes, Communications, Disclosures (or Lecture transcripts), Concept Articles, Reviews, and occasionally Technology, Safety and Environmental Reports. The Editor’s preference is always for full papers with full experimental descriptions of a comprehensive piece of research, development, manufacture, or new technology conducted at multikilogram scale. However, there is a place in the journal for shorter papers such as Technical Notes or Communications, and I would like to encourage authors to submit papers of this type where a longer manuscript may not be justified. For example, it would be of value to the scientific and engineering community and especially the readership of OPRD to have available optimised procedures for preparations of specific compounds on kilogram or tonne scale. The procedure described in the experimental part of such a note or communication might describe only a single synthetic step. This unadorned experimental would of itself, of course, not be sufficient to warrant publication, but if some of the following were also included there would be a viable publication: - Was there discussion about what were the synthesis options, and what decision-making process led to the described synthesis? - How was the process developed and optimised, and what were the important factors? - Was a Design of Experiment approach used in optimisation? - What were the pitfalls, and how were they overcome? - What mechanistic information could be obtained, and how did that influence the development and optimisation? - What was the quality of the raw materials, solvents, reagents, etc., and how did this influence the process? - What were the byproducts, and how were they minimised? - What were the analytical issues? - When the process was scaled up, what problems were encountered, and how were they solved? - Were there any safety issues associated with the scale up? - How was the workup and product isolation optimised to minimise environmental waste? - How was the product purified and freed from residual solvent? - Were there any crystallisation/polymorphism issues? - What equipment is recommended for large-scale synthesis? - What areas still remain for further optimisation? All these questions are typically considered in the proper development of a kilogram-scale preparation. A short but indepth published paper on a specific synthesis would be valuable to our community if it contained answers to many of the above questions. Such short papers could include a level of experimental detail not necessarily seen in other published © 2013 American Chemical Society
Published: October 25, 2013 1367
dx.doi.org/10.1021/op400293v | Org. Process Res. Dev. 2013, 17, 1367−1368
Organic Process Research & Development
Editorial
overall paper would still be considered by the Editor for a complete description of a process. I therefore encourage you to write up your work for publication and look forward to receiving your short papers in the future.
■
Trevor Laird, Editor AUTHOR INFORMATION
Notes
Views expressed in this editorial are those of the author and not necessarily the views of the ACS.
1368
dx.doi.org/10.1021/op400293v | Org. Process Res. Dev. 2013, 17, 1367−1368
