hypervalent_iodine

! Moderator Note Sorry this took so long, I was celebrating having made it around the sun another time. cixe, ! Moderator Note Do I need to point out the hypocrisy in this comment? I hope not. You are correct in most of your first statement, however, and this is why I am closing your thread. You are not permitted to reopen it and if you do feel like starting a new one on a different topic, please be aware that: a.) Insulting other members is absolutely not permitted. b.) You will need a thread with substance, that has some basis in the real world and where applicable, contains supporting evidence.

! Moderator Note No. We're not going down this path again.

! Moderator Note Maybe I wasn't clear. When you see something like this in a green comment, ! Moderator Note or something like this in a red comment box, ! Moderator Note it means you are getting an official reminder or warning from staff. Your thread doesn't appear to have any basis in reality, or you aren't making yourself clear (and the onus to do that is entirely on you). You have one last chance to amend that before I close the thread.

I think he means when you get sad or depressed about something. Personally, I find it extremely useful to write everything down. I've kept a diary since I was 10 and I've always found that writing about the things going on around me and about what I'm feeling clarifies my thoughts and positions on matters extremely well and leads me to be able to reason things out. I take comfort in resolution.

! Moderator Note I guess I didn't make myself clear. Stop soap boxing. Alan, I have split your post into the trash.

! Moderator Note ajaysinghgoshiyal, If you don't have anything to say, then don't say anything, especially if what you have to say constitutes thread hijacking. I have split your posts from this thread into the trash.

! Moderator Note Get back on topic, please. And stop with the preachy posts; this is not a thread about whether or not God exists.

As to the title: Cyclopropyne would, in theory, be a very high energy molecule and you would have to input a lot of energy to allow for the kind of strain that is contained in its structure. At very low temperatures you would give preference to other reaction paths that have lower activation barriers and given that the synthesis of cyclopropyne would almost certainly have a very high activation barrier, the chances of it forming would be quite low. To the OP: Practically speaking, no. It would be very difficult to impossible to handle and you could presumably get similar alkylating power from other reagents.

Organic synthesis often requires that you replicate procedures from journals to achieve whatever synthetic goal you have in mind. Protocols are usually sufficiently detailed (although they tend to skimp on specific technical / equipment information), however all too often the results are not able to be reproduced (this is more problematic in lower impact journals) and the corresponding authors are rarely helpful. This is a fairly niche example of where repetition of other works is commonplace. I doubt, for example, that many groups would spend the time or money repeating a complex natural product total synthesis simply to see if they could. I suspect that the lack of difference between the two groups in the study is probably a result of the training interventions being short and that perhaps something longer and more intensive would produce different results. Again, this leads me to think that having dedicated and fully trained staff for reviewing papers is a better method than having academics with very little spare time or motivation (in general). I am unsurprised by the second point.

! Moderator Note I would like to make the above and official warning to you, Jaya Jagannath. Our rules prohibit soap boxing / preaching. If you cannot do this, you will find your time here to be very short. In the meantime, thread closed.

! Moderator Note You first.

! Moderator Note StavicWolf, Our rules explicitly prohibit making slurs or prejudiced comments against groups of people, so please refrain from this sort of grossly inaccurate / racist commentary.

! Moderator Note Once again, you had your chance with this topic. Do not reopen it again, please.

I suppose that comes down to the deadlines imposed by indivual journals. In some chemistry journals I know of, the wait is about a few months from submission to publication (all things going well). There are some reviewers who will keep sending back comments for correction for months on end until they are happy with the result. A friend in mathematics is currently experiencing something very similar to this: (For anyone who hasn't already seen it, Overly Honest Methods is quite amusing. This is a small collection of some of the best) On a slightly unrelated note, I had a friend who recently got back his PhD thesis from his reviewers for correction after a 3/4 month wait and had his graduation date delayed by 6 months as a result. Yes, I recall the one by the Science correspondent about lichen natural products. It's worrying, to say the least. There are people, such as the author of this blog, who do a stellar job of investigating academic fraud, but one person can only look at so many papers. I suspect a lot of it is that the people reviewing manuscripts simply do not wish to invest the time in doing a thorough job and I can certainly empathise with that after having marked a stack of 3rd year lab reports, but it is a problem. Perhaps one alternative would be to set up independent bodies whose sole job is to review papers for submission to journals? Very recently at my current university and also at the one I studied at, there were instances of two very high ranking professors (one of them the former head of the School of Health Sciences) having some major publications retracted because the experiments simply didn't exist and the data in the paper was incredibly inconsistent. Both should have been picked up at the peer review stage, but they weren't picked up until someone within the groups contacted officials within their respective universities and the universities began their own internal investigations. In at least one case, the NHRC grants that had been issued to the group on the basis of the phoney paper also had to be repaid.

I cam across this earlier today and thought it might be interesting to others here. http://violentmetaphors.com/2013/12/13/how-to-become-good-at-peer-review-a-guide-for-young-scientists/ I've not had the opportunity to peer review anything or deal with the peer review process at all, so I am unsure if all of these points are really necessary. I'd be interested to hear what others who are more experienced with peer review have to say about it. In one section of the article they bring up the anonymity of peer review and I'm wondering if those who have been through the process consider this to be a draw back? It's not something I had considered, but I agree with the idea that it probably increases the tendency for bullying.

You have been told countless times in this thread as well as in mod notes and in PM that you can restart the topic. No one is stopping you from doing that and no where in any of the mod notes that were issued did staff say that they / we would; all staff have asked is that you use your skills in persuasive argument to direct the thread in a manner that does not come across as downright inflammatory as your last thread(s). Heck, you've even been given pointers on how to do it. Take ownership of your actions and just move on. This thread really isn't doing you any favors.

I'm not sure why you are having trouble. Exactly what do you mean by not working? It should dissolve fairly easily in plain water. How much are you adding into what volume? Have you tried warming it gently while you stir it? This may make it turn blue, but then so would dissolving it in HCl.

This isn't something you're actually considering trying, is it? Please don't.

! Moderator Note overtone, please try and keep personal comments out of it. Stick to arguing the facts and if you believe something to be untrue, you should be able to demonstrate it properly instead of simply calling someone a liar. And try and keep the profanity to a minimum, if you could.

! Moderator Note The right direction in this case would be to go and see a doctor (as noted by Moontanman). We do not give out medical advice here.

We have the report function, which will sometimes (depending on the nature of the report) be responded to in this thread or via PM. Alternatively, you are welcome to PM a member of staff about a moderator decision. Your original thread was initially closed by me, but the closure was agreed upon unanimously by 3 or 4 other moderators. We would prefer not to house threads that we think will start flame wars between members. They are not constructive and they are a pain to moderate. If you had wanted to start a thread on why people hit children as a form of discipline and whether or not it is a good or bad thing, you would have been better to place the thread (with a bit more explanation) in the psychology section and not frame it as a question of why religious people abuse children. As for the soap boxing claim, I think that is fairly self-explanatory. Simply linking an article or posting nothing but the text of an article isn't a good starting point for discussion, as it doesn't inform people of the points you wish to raise and engage in conversation about.

! Moderator Note Tridimity, if you have problems with a moderator decision or you wish to clarify something, there are appropriate channels to make your case. I'm closing this thread pending staff review as well.

! Moderator Note Okay, then this is closed. You are not to reopen it.

! Moderator Note Then show that evidence or this thread will be closed. A book, by the way, is only evidence that someone wrote a book.

! Moderator Note Since the OP has not returned and due it being little more than an attempt at soap boxing, this thread is closed.