Sciencemadness Discussion Board
Not logged in [Login - Register]
Go To Bottom

Printable Version  
 Pages:  1    3
Author: Subject: Prepublication section, why not make a amateur-scientific journal ?
DubaiAmateurRocketry
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 843
Registered: 10-5-2013
Location: LA, CA, USA
Member Is Offline

Mood: In research

[*] posted on 14-1-2017 at 10:26
Prepublication section, why not make a amateur-scientific journal ?


as the title says,

knowledgeable members could potentially participate and be as editor/peer reviwers.

Maybe a handful decent articles could be published each month / season.

It might increase the scientific writing as well as quality of the forum ?
View user's profile View All Posts By User
PHILOU Zrealone
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2879
Registered: 20-5-2002
Location: Brussel
Member Is Offline

Mood: Bis-diazo-dinitro-hydroquinonic

[*] posted on 14-1-2017 at 10:56


Maybe a first step would be to finalize more publications from the prepublication.

This would drive more attention to the forum and maybe financial participation.

It would be great to compete with scientific journals.




PH Z (PHILOU Zrealone)

"Physic is all what never works; Chemistry is all what stinks and explodes!"-"Life that deadly disease, sexually transmitted."(W.Allen)
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Corrosive Joeseph
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 635
Registered: 17-5-2015
Location: The References Forum
Member Is Offline

Mood: Cyclic

[*] posted on 14-1-2017 at 14:36


I don't know if the quantity of finished 'publications' would be regular or consistent all the time and that can't be guaranteed.

The quality is definately here though.

Some kind of section/forum for finalized polished and most importantly, proven, 'publication' write-ups would be great.

It would most certainly raise the bar amongst those most interested.


/CJ




MSDS Addict and OTC Slut
View user's profile View All Posts By User
aga
Forum Drunkard
*****




Posts: 7028
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 14-1-2017 at 14:52


A 'peer' would be a Chemist able and willing to test the procedure(s) in any such pre-publication, then actually Do it, thoroughly, then write a review.

Don't think that we have enough Actual amateur chemist members to do that.

If 'peer review' was just Talk, this site could produce Thousands of 'peer reviewed' documents a year.




View user's profile View All Posts By User
mayko
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 952
Registered: 17-1-2013
Location: Carrboro, NC
Member Is Offline

Mood: anomalous

[*] posted on 14-1-2017 at 15:51


I'm glad you're talking about this; a few of my friends and I have kicked this sort of idea around before, and I've seen a few small home science journals floating around before. Here's one I just found, can't vouch for its reputability:
http://theoryandpractice.citizenscienceassociation.org/

An SM journal might be a good way to organize and archive. The Wiki is a great resource, but I think that there is also a lot to be said for an easily printable version (paper still works when the power goes out) and there's no reason the Wiki couldn't be updated in tandem. It could also be a good way to network with other people who might not think of themselves as scientists but do DIY stuff (MAKE magazine, for example)

There is a sizable backlog in prepub, so volume shouldn't be a problem for a while, especially if it were kept to a pretty leisurely pace. Also, there's no reason every item needs to be a full-blown writeup; lots of academic journals also publish brief letters with short results - I think that there are a lot of interesting nuggets outside of prepub which could get written up. It would also be a chance to consolidate some of the megathreads. Stuff from the Pretty Picture thread goes on the cover. etc...

I run an occaisonal zine in my spare time so if I can contribute skills there I would :cool:

I don't think that there has ever been strict criteria for Publication from Prepub, I think it just stopped happening a while ago. Independent replication of results seems like an overly stringent demand though.




al-khemie is not a terrorist organization
"Chemicals, chemicals... I need chemicals!" - George Hayduke
"Wubbalubba dub-dub!" - Rick Sanchez
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
Maroboduus
National Hazard
****




Posts: 257
Registered: 14-9-2016
Location: 26 Ancho Street
Member Is Offline

Mood: vacant

[*] posted on 14-1-2017 at 16:16


Quote: Originally posted by aga  
A 'peer' would be a Chemist able and willing to test the procedure(s) in any such pre-publication, then actually Do it, thoroughly, then write a review.

Don't think that we have enough Actual amateur chemist members to do that.

If 'peer review' was just Talk, this site could produce Thousands of 'peer reviewed' documents a year.


Does peer review actually imply somebody reproducing the results before publication? I thought it just meant having some qualified professional from a pool selected by the journal look it over to confirm that it's not total blatherskite.

If everything is actually re-done by the peer as part of the review process then publishing these journals involves a lot more work than I thought.

And a lot more expense. If some guy wants to publish a paper about something he did with a 60 GEV linear accelerator is it necessary for the reviewer to get access to similar equipment to re-do the experiment before publication?

EDIT (next day): Thanks to those below for details on journals and how they function.

I find the journal idea attractive, but suspect there could be pitfalls to setting something like that up as an integral part of this website.

We are a relatively small group here, and the occasional frictions which crop up from scientific disputes could become much worse if people are endorsing or vetoing the publication of each other's papers.

The quasi-social nature of this site, while a good thing in many ways, could exacerbate this. Especially as there are some strained relationships and long-standing grudges in this little society already.

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a journal. I think there probably should. Even if the actual amount of output means irregular publication schedules.
I just think that it would be best to give considerable thought to how best to implement this while minimizing the additional tensions it might produce.

I admit that I may be being overcautious here, but I'd hate to see tensions between the members compromise the high quality of this site the way it has threatened to do at times in the past. (Examples omitted to avoid the appearance of pointing fingers at any individual or group).

NOTE: Yes, I am in part referring to things that happened before I registered here. However that does not make me a sock for some previous user. It's all right there in the archives for any new user to read.
There has been enough drama on this site in the past that you can't do much browsing through the archives without stumbling on at least some of it.




[Edited on 15-1-2017 by Maroboduus]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Metacelsus
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2272
Registered: 26-12-2012
Location: Cambridge, MA
Member Is Offline

Mood: Double, double, toil and trouble

[*] posted on 14-1-2017 at 16:21


Peer review does not generally involve experimental replication. However, things like OrgSyn do.



As below, so above.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
PHILOU Zrealone
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2879
Registered: 20-5-2002
Location: Brussel
Member Is Offline

Mood: Bis-diazo-dinitro-hydroquinonic

[*] posted on 14-1-2017 at 16:33


I don't think peer review implies to redo the experiments; but it is more like to provide scientific criticism (positive and negative criticism) in a way the prepublication comes to "maturity" for official wide open publication...
thus:
-to correct obvious mistakes,
-to clarify obscure points,
-to avoid partiality or inadequate "partis pris",
-to propose validating experiments or test,
-...
all this with as target an optimum quality of content for the future reader and a correct and understandable transmission of knowledge/research/results.

It is interesting that peer reviewers are:
-for one part from people into the field, so they know what rules the subject of the publication and what they talk about with a in depth full understanding of it.
-for another part from people outside of the field, so they have an external view about the problem and may put the finger onto some unclear parts for most "uninitiated to the subject" people.




PH Z (PHILOU Zrealone)

"Physic is all what never works; Chemistry is all what stinks and explodes!"-"Life that deadly disease, sexually transmitted."(W.Allen)
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Tsjerk
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1646
Registered: 20-4-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline

Mood: Mood

[*] posted on 14-1-2017 at 21:17


I think this is a great idea, maybe 2-4 issues a year with two peer reviewers per article. Peer reviewers normally never repeat the experiments, but can ask for further control experiments. I don't see that necessary for most of the stuff in pre-publications as it is usually pretty clear what the product is. Maybe a test for impurities could be asked when the contamination is obvious and the test doable.

I would love the do some peer-reviewing, I have been doing it twice now for a journal called Frontiers in Biology, a new open access journal.

[Edited on 15-1-2017 by Tsjerk]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
DubaiAmateurRocketry
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 843
Registered: 10-5-2013
Location: LA, CA, USA
Member Is Offline

Mood: In research

[*] posted on 4-6-2018 at 16:35


Bump, why isnt SCM doing this ?
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Geocachmaster
Hazard to Others
***




Posts: 145
Registered: 5-3-2016
Location: Maine, USA
Member Is Offline

Mood: Corroded, just like my spatulas

[*] posted on 4-6-2018 at 17:37


This is a great idea!

Because of likely sporadic participation, how about a limit of ~20 papers per volume, and a new volume will be published when the limit is reached.

Two peer reviewers on each paper. Recreating the experiment(s) will only be necessary if there is some dispute about the validity of results. Experiments using already established methods should be okay. For example, a paper on the use of Grignard reagents for making a variety of tertiary alcohols does not need to be checked for each experiment. But one on making acyl chlorides using vinegar and table salt would have to be recreated. The reviewers can accept, reject, or work with the author to fix any mistakes.

Papers should be in a standard format, somewhat like OrgSyn. The topics should be bringing something new to the table. Writing on how you copied a procedure from OrgSyn and it worked is not new. However, if the information existing is not clear and/or very old, it would be an acceptable topic. Ex. lab scale contact process (can't remember who did that one).

Is Journal of Amateur Chemistry a good name? I think we should do it. The prepublication section has been sitting still for too long.





I make chemistry YouTube videos: https://www.youtube.com/c/tomslab
View user's profile View All Posts By User
j_sum1
Administrator
********




Posts: 4716
Registered: 4-10-2014
Location: Oz
Member Is Offline

Mood: Metastable, and that's good enough.

[*] posted on 4-6-2018 at 18:08


Journal of Amateur Chemistry is a good name.
Science Madness Journal is another.

The biggest hurdles I see are


  1. The low frequency with which new stuff arrives in prepub. Sure there is a lot of stuff there already but see #2
  2. Much of the stuff in prepub is older and has been contributed by members who are inactive or less frequently active and it may be hard to coax them into returning to an old project if theer are adjustments to be made.
  3. This would require a serious commitment by the organisers and peer reviewers to get it off the ground. Not impossible, but time seems to be the most limited resource for most of us.





If you are interested, take a look at the latest offering from sum_lab:
A primer on metals and non-metals with at least one novel experiment.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
DubaiAmateurRocketry
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 843
Registered: 10-5-2013
Location: LA, CA, USA
Member Is Offline

Mood: In research

[*] posted on 4-6-2018 at 18:11


Quote: Originally posted by Geocachmaster  
This is a great idea!

Because of likely sporadic participation, how about a limit of ~20 papers per volume, and a new volume will be published when the limit is reached.

Two peer reviewers on each paper. Recreating the experiment(s) will only be necessary if there is some dispute about the validity of results. Experiments using already established methods should be okay. For example, a paper on the use of Grignard reagents for making a variety of tertiary alcohols does not need to be checked for each experiment. But one on making acyl chlorides using vinegar and table salt would have to be recreated. The reviewers can accept, reject, or work with the author to fix any mistakes.

Papers should be in a standard format, somewhat like OrgSyn. The topics should be bringing something new to the table. Writing on how you copied a procedure from OrgSyn and it worked is not new. However, if the information existing is not clear and/or very old, it would be an acceptable topic. Ex. lab scale contact process (can't remember who did that one).

Is Journal of Amateur Chemistry a good name? I think we should do it. The prepublication section has been sitting still for too long.



Yes and Agreed.

Theres some minor issues to address:

Should the peer-review be blind? Is the publishing of real name be optional? Should it be free? how many peer reviewers per content ?

Peer review could be blind, but i dont see many conflicts between members, so that could be optional. A problem with a completely professiona l Journal is that people sometimes on forum choose privacy, and there should be options to whether or not publish the real name. Well running this website probably costs some, but again, half of the members are broke, so I am not sure. Probably free. No doubt it should be open access. I'd suggest 3 peer reviewers per article.

Quote:

"Journal of Amateur Chemistry"


We might not be professionals, but some here was once, and many are above what normal people think of "amateurs".

It shouldn't sound too amateur, because I believe the level of SM is more semi-professional rather than amateur. Journal of Unemployed Chemists would sound better.

Im kidding, anyways that'd be up to the makers of this forum. Something simple like SM Chemistry Journal is probably better.


Quote: Originally posted by j_sum1  



  1. The low frequency with which new stuff arrives in prepub. Sure there is a lot of stuff there already but see #2
  2. Much of the stuff in prepub is older and has been contributed by members who are inactive or less frequently active and it may be hard to coax them into returning to an old project if theer are adjustments to be made.
  3. This would require a serious commitment by the organisers and peer reviewers to get it off the ground. Not impossible, but time seems to be the most limited resource for most of us.



I think we dont need to coax them into returning. The current members should be able to sustain it, this journal will attract more people and amateurs possibly.
Theres a lot of members here that has been here for over a decade. I believe this is sustainable, and commitable. I am sure many would commit. There might be lower numbers who might be into doing the proof-read checks for spelling grammar etc.

Anyways, the journal if receiving several types of papers should also probably categorize its papers.

Inorganic chemistry, Energetic/Hazardous Materials, Computational, Biochemistry, etc etc

Also, what about review articles?

[Edited on 5-6-2018 by DubaiAmateurRocketry]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
DubaiAmateurRocketry
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 843
Registered: 10-5-2013
Location: LA, CA, USA
Member Is Offline

Mood: In research

[*] posted on 4-6-2018 at 19:36


Just an example

Sample.png - 388kB
View user's profile View All Posts By User
symboom
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 801
Registered: 11-11-2010
Location: Wrongplanet
Member Is Offline

Mood: Doing science while it is still legal since 2010

[*] posted on 4-6-2018 at 22:28


Wow looks nice. Great page layout


[Edited on 5-6-2018 by symboom]




Chemistry video Storage
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/kbll6gz9bdb4q/Videos
The State of Mad Science newsletter
http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=98577
My open source scratch paper
Pastebin.com/u/symboom
Natures Intellectual Organic Peroxide. >>Ascaridole <<
2020 year of science
Oxone
Used for the production of --> CH2O/Cl2/ClO2/Br2/I2
------------------------------------->>Hydrogen Peroxide <<
Sodium had its fame long enough time for Calcium
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Ubya
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 733
Registered: 23-11-2017
Location: Rome-Italy
Member Is Offline

Mood: I'm a maddo scientisto!!!

[*] posted on 4-6-2018 at 22:38


we would need to publish this journal elsewhere, not only on the SM forum. what i mean is that a paper before being published on the journal, would be written here to be reviewed and corrected, so most of the forum members will already know everything about it. a journal written just for SM members is just a collection of threads from publication and prepublication that we already read many times




---------------------------------------------------------------------
feel free to correct my grammar, or any mistakes i make
---------------------------------------------------------------------
View user's profile View All Posts By User
clearly_not_atara
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1564
Registered: 3-11-2013
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 4-6-2018 at 23:13


I have some experience with peer review.

One difference between Prepublication and a scientific journal is that scientists usually describe in words what SMers prefer to do with pictures, eg:

https://www.sciencemadness.org/whisper/viewthread.php?tid=82...

This would obviously never meet the publication standards at any journal, even Organic Syntheses. But it is fine for us.

Also, the documentation (particularly documenting unsuccessful trials) and product testing in Prepub is usually not as extensive as it could be. To the extent that it is, that's because threads usually don't make it into Prepub without being evaluated informally by members on the forum. Plus peer reviewers usually expect complete work, not "I got this to work kinda, maybe someone should try it with a proper mag stirbar". It's not peer reviewed if you don't reject anything.

The biggest thing lacking from a scientific point of view though is the culture of citing and comparing to previous work. This is extremely important in academia but in Prepub there are often no citations.

I notice that in the image posted above, people are mostly excited about typesetting. This is something SM could certainly do. Typesetting articles is cool but it doesn't make it a scientific journal IMO.

[Edited on 5-6-2018 by clearly_not_atara]




[Edited on 04-20-1969 by clearly_not_atara]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
DubaiAmateurRocketry
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 843
Registered: 10-5-2013
Location: LA, CA, USA
Member Is Offline

Mood: In research

[*] posted on 5-6-2018 at 00:12


Quote: Originally posted by clearly_not_atara  
I have some experience with peer review.

One difference between Prepublication and a scientific journal is that scientists usually describe in words what SMers prefer to do with pictures, eg:

https://www.sciencemadness.org/whisper/viewthread.php?tid=82...

This would obviously never meet the publication standards at any journal, even Organic Syntheses. But it is fine for us.

Also, the documentation (particularly documenting unsuccessful trials) and product testing in Prepub is usually not as extensive as it could be. To the extent that it is, that's because threads usually don't make it into Prepub without being evaluated informally by members on the forum. Plus peer reviewers usually expect complete work, not "I got this to work kinda, maybe someone should try it with a proper mag stirbar". It's not peer reviewed if you don't reject anything.

The biggest thing lacking from a scientific point of view though is the culture of citing and comparing to previous work. This is extremely important in academia but in Prepub there are often no citations.

I notice that in the image posted above, people are mostly excited about typesetting. This is something SM could certainly do. Typesetting articles is cool but it doesn't make it a scientific journal IMO.

[Edited on 5-6-2018 by clearly_not_atara]


Well some members post some extremely professional stuff there, such as Atx, with dozen references.

I've made striaght up posts with dozen references, Im sure SM members can add a few references. The standard could be raised of course, maybe the journal could also have a section (letters) dedicated to synthesis articles like these.

Eg.

A hierarchy can be set, such as for example:

"Article" - major/minor discoveries, demonstrations of complex/alternate/multi-step synthesis, demonstration of using computational modeling and theoretical calculations, demonstration of the potential of an uncommon compound, discovery of a significant alternative/cheaper synthesis route, etc.

"Reivews" - reviews can be published as reviews, maybe there could be a reference limit/suggestion, eg, best above 20.

"Short communication" or "letter" a synthesis of a common compound demonstration or with a minor tweak (using an easier to find or cheaper to find solvent or starting material).


If it goes well, maybe it'd even attract out-siders, such as college/grad level chemistry students. I know many professors I can suggest their students publish their minor works to here.


[Edited on 5-6-2018 by DubaiAmateurRocketry]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
12thealchemist
Hazard to Others
***




Posts: 143
Registered: 1-1-2014
Location: The Isle of Albion
Member Is Offline

Mood: Gallous

[*] posted on 5-6-2018 at 02:25


I had this idea a few weeks ago, but felt my presence on this forum was too small to suggest something as big as this. I've hung around on this forum for many years, and I consider this community and forum utterly invaluable. I would absolutely love to get involved in this, and have a couple of ideas of my own. I'd be up for doing any electronic checking, but as a uni student trialling reactions could prove challenging away from my lab :P
On the anonymity front, how about having two or three people repeat the experiment, then publish with their names as the authors alongside the anonymous author? This would mean there was a Real Person attached to the paper, as well as the "discoverer" of the experiment/reaction.
On the front of scientific language and the like, I can't see it being difficult to create a pdf giving all the requirements for an article to be published. Sort of a "Please ensure your article meets these criteria before submitting. It just makes the editors' lives easier!"
Regarding reviews, it might be worthwhile publishing a regular review of a particular reaction, like the Grignard, covering all potential aspects as well as a "comprehensive" or as best as is reasonable, coverage of such reactions as conducted by SM members. It would then serve as a "font of all SM knowledge" on the matter.
The short communications sound like an excellent idea to circumvent the need to publish small discoveries that don't warrant a big article.
Categorisation could simply be done as different sections of the paper, or even not at all. From what I've seen of whole journals, there appears not to be any categorisation within a journal. However, journals tend to have a "theme" for want of a better description, which the SM Journal of Chemistry has as "amateur chemistry".
I understand that peer review tends to be blind in "real" journals, so why not copy that?
Just my thoughts on the matter :D
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
Texium (zts16)
Administrator
********




Posts: 3011
Registered: 11-1-2014
Location: San Marcos, TX
Member Is Offline

Mood: Graduated

[*] posted on 5-6-2018 at 08:58


I thought of doing something similar a few months ago, the Sciencemadness Synthbook, which would be an annual publication of the collected synthetic procedures written by SM members along with the "classics" that nobody necessarily owns, but have become mainstays in amateur chemistry. It didn't really get off the ground, but after the first year, the job would become a lot easier with each successive edition.

I like the journal idea though, and might I suggest for the title:


JOURNAL OF INDEPENDENT CHEMISTRY

Presented by sciencemadness.org




View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
DubaiAmateurRocketry
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 843
Registered: 10-5-2013
Location: LA, CA, USA
Member Is Offline

Mood: In research

[*] posted on 5-6-2018 at 09:46


Quote: Originally posted by 12thealchemist  


how about having two or three people repeat the experiment

I understand that peer review tends to be blind in "real" journals, so why not copy that?


We do not need to repeat the experiment. Many reasons:

first, actually no journals do that, the only places that have repeated any experiments are patent offices(even then probably not).

second, there are people that might own obscure compounds a very very limited number of other people here that own them, and if they do, they somehow have to also be on the peer review board and can afford to repeat the experiment.

As for confirmation of results, just take your sample to nearest university and beg for a HPLC result. So someone here with an access to HPLC could stand out to take samples and produce HPLC results of other SM members + a small fee.

the blind review is fine, it could be done or not done. It is a good idea.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Tsjerk
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1646
Registered: 20-4-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline

Mood: Mood

[*] posted on 5-6-2018 at 09:57


I never heard of blind reviews, the peer reviewer is anonymous. The publishing party can request exclusion of a certain reviewer beforehand though, it is up too the editor to honor this request or not, but it is good custom to honor. It is also up too the editor to determine whether requests made by the reviewer are reasonable or not to ask from the publisher to comply too.

At least that is how it is done in regular scientific journals.

[Edited on 5-6-2018 by Tsjerk]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
symboom
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 801
Registered: 11-11-2010
Location: Wrongplanet
Member Is Offline

Mood: Doing science while it is still legal since 2010

[*] posted on 5-6-2018 at 10:02
Open source Journal's


A sciencemadness journal or we could publish in one of these Journals

Arkivoc

Beilstein Journal of Organic Chemistry

Chemical Science

Journal of the American Chemical Society

Molecules

Organic Syntheses

Open Chemistry

Or add a new one
Sciencemadness journal



[Edited on 6-6-2018 by symboom]




Chemistry video Storage
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/kbll6gz9bdb4q/Videos
The State of Mad Science newsletter
http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=98577
My open source scratch paper
Pastebin.com/u/symboom
Natures Intellectual Organic Peroxide. >>Ascaridole <<
2020 year of science
Oxone
Used for the production of --> CH2O/Cl2/ClO2/Br2/I2
------------------------------------->>Hydrogen Peroxide <<
Sodium had its fame long enough time for Calcium
View user's profile View All Posts By User
DubaiAmateurRocketry
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 843
Registered: 10-5-2013
Location: LA, CA, USA
Member Is Offline

Mood: In research

[*] posted on 5-6-2018 at 20:43


Quote: Originally posted by symboom  
A sciencemadness journal to publish in one of these Journals...


What do you mean
View user's profile View All Posts By User
BaFuxa
Harmless
*




Posts: 47
Registered: 18-9-2017
Location: Mars
Member Is Offline

Mood: Buzzing

[*] posted on 6-6-2018 at 00:31


Most research papers I read appear specialized in a way ( Journal of Catalysis, Journal of Electrochemistry etc). It can also remain in the style of the forum, like a medley with a focus on interesting synthesis/ topics. I find myself browsing the site for stuff that dates back years and that is absent from the current pages so a journal could be a good way of archiving the gems as well as publishing them.









Potential counts for nothing until realized.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
 Pages:  1    3

  Go To Top