| Pages:
1
2
3 |
DubaiAmateurRocketry
National Hazard
Posts: 841
Registered: 10-5-2013
Location: LA, CA, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: In research
|
|
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 ?
|
|
|
PHILOU Zrealone
International Hazard
Posts: 2893
Registered: 20-5-2002
Location: Brussel
Member Is Offline
Mood: Bis-diazo-dinitro-hydroquinonic
|
|
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)
|
|
|
Corrosive Joeseph
National Hazard
Posts: 915
Registered: 17-5-2015
Location: The Other Place
Member Is Offline
Mood: Cyclic
|
|
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
Being well adjusted to a sick society is no measure of one's mental health
|
|
|
aga
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
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.
|
|
|
mayko
International Hazard
Posts: 1218
Registered: 17-1-2013
Location: Carrboro, NC
Member Is Offline
Mood: anomalous (Euclid class)
|
|
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 
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
|
|
|
Maroboduus
Hazard to Others
Posts: 257
Registered: 14-9-2016
Location: 26 Ancho Street
Member Is Offline
Mood: vacant
|
|
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]
|
|
|
Metacelsus
International Hazard
Posts: 2531
Registered: 26-12-2012
Location: Boston, MA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Double, double, toil and trouble
|
|
Peer review does not generally involve experimental replication. However, things like OrgSyn do.
|
|
|
PHILOU Zrealone
International Hazard
Posts: 2893
Registered: 20-5-2002
Location: Brussel
Member Is Offline
Mood: Bis-diazo-dinitro-hydroquinonic
|
|
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)
|
|
|
Tsjerk
International Hazard
Posts: 3022
Registered: 20-4-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mood
|
|
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]
|
|
|
DubaiAmateurRocketry
National Hazard
Posts: 841
Registered: 10-5-2013
Location: LA, CA, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: In research
|
|
Bump, why isnt SCM doing this ?
|
|
|
Geocachmaster
Hazard to Others
Posts: 146
Registered: 5-3-2016
Location: Maine, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Corroded, just like my spatulas
|
|
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.
|
|
|
j_sum1
Administrator
Posts: 6218
Registered: 4-10-2014
Location: Unmoved
Member Is Offline
Mood: Organised
|
|
Journal of Amateur Chemistry is a good name.
Science Madness Journal is another.
The biggest hurdles I see are
The low frequency with which new stuff arrives in prepub. Sure there is a lot of stuff there already but see #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.
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.
|
|
|
DubaiAmateurRocketry
National Hazard
Posts: 841
Registered: 10-5-2013
Location: LA, CA, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: In research
|
|
| 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 |
The low frequency with which new stuff arrives in prepub. Sure there is a lot of stuff there already but see #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.
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]
|
|
|
DubaiAmateurRocketry
National Hazard
Posts: 841
Registered: 10-5-2013
Location: LA, CA, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: In research
|
|
Just an example
|
|
|
symboom
International Hazard
Posts: 1143
Registered: 11-11-2010
Location: Wrongplanet
Member Is Offline
Mood: Doing science while it is still legal since 2010
|
|
Wow looks nice. Great page layout
[Edited on 5-6-2018 by symboom]
|
|
|
Ubya
International Hazard
Posts: 1232
Registered: 23-11-2017
Location: Rome-Italy
Member Is Offline
Mood: I'm a maddo scientisto!!!
|
|
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
clearly_not_atara
International Hazard
Posts: 2691
Registered: 3-11-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: Big
|
|
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]
|
|
|
DubaiAmateurRocketry
National Hazard
Posts: 841
Registered: 10-5-2013
Location: LA, CA, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: In research
|
|
| 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]
|
|
|
12thealchemist
Hazard to Others
Posts: 181
Registered: 1-1-2014
Location: The Isle of Albion
Member Is Offline
Mood: Rare and Earthy
|
|
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 
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 
|
|
|
Texium
Administrator
Posts: 4508
Registered: 11-1-2014
Location: Salt Lake City
Member Is Offline
Mood: PhD candidate!
|
|
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
|
|
|
DubaiAmateurRocketry
National Hazard
Posts: 841
Registered: 10-5-2013
Location: LA, CA, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: In research
|
|
| 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.
|
|
|
Tsjerk
International Hazard
Posts: 3022
Registered: 20-4-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mood
|
|
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]
|
|
|
symboom
International Hazard
Posts: 1143
Registered: 11-11-2010
Location: Wrongplanet
Member Is Offline
Mood: Doing science while it is still legal since 2010
|
|
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]
|
|
|
DubaiAmateurRocketry
National Hazard
Posts: 841
Registered: 10-5-2013
Location: LA, CA, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: In research
|
|
What do you mean
|
|
|
BaFuxa
Hazard to Self
Posts: 61
Registered: 18-9-2017
Location: Mars
Member Is Offline
Mood: Buzzing
|
|
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.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
