Strange Cover Art

A small part of me remembers a time before journal articles could all be accessed online. Back then, the cover art -- a creative expression of some of the newly-reported research between the covers -- could swing you towards one journal over another as you milled around the musty library stacks.

Source: Wiley-VCH, c. 2014 / ACIEdoi: 10.1002/anie.201409223

Nowadays, we've lost some of that artistic tradition, save for notable standouts Nature Chemistry and Angewandte Chemie. Hence, my confusion when looking at this week's Angewandte cover art - does anyone understand what's going on here? 

Best I can tell, this graphic is a nod to Prof. Younan Xia's excellent overview of the benefits and risks inherent to nano-scale research. But the graphic appears (to me, anyway) to resemble two angry Pokemon fighting over the sword from Legend of Zelda. About the only chemistry I see? Blink, and you'll miss it: along the blade are five tiny emblems meant to represent common nanostructures such as carbon nanotubes or micelles. 

Readers, am I missing something obvious here, or does this not really communicate the depth of Prof. Xia's review issue?

Friday Fun: How to Fund Your Data Analyst

Remember Amos Smith's Editorial, discussed here yesterday?

(and here, and here, and here)

I wondered, on Twitter: How many submissions does Organic Letters get in a year, anyway?

Sonja Krane, a JACS editor, set me straight:

@seearroh Journal submission statistics aren't publicly available. Sorry I can't be more helpful in this case!
— Sonja Krane (@sonjakrane) June 6, 2013

Rats, foiled again! But then, an interesting tidbit from Stu Cantrill over at Nature Chemistry
(N.B. Stu used to work at OL):

@seearroh When I was there, accept rate was getting down to 50%. I suspect now 30-40%, so look at papers published in 2012 & go from there.
— Stuart Cantrill (@stuartcantrill) June 7, 2013 

Hmm, so all I have to do is count. In 2012, Organic Letters published 24 issues, which seem to have an average article count ~80 / per.* So that's 2,000 articles / year, give or take 100. Now, let's assume Stu's lower range (30% acceptance) - that's 7,000 submissions. Back of the envelope, I'd guess an average Supporting Info section to clock in at around 40 pages nowadays.

That's 280,000 pages of SI.
Pity the poor Data Analyst.

But...what a great way to FUND this potentially burgeoning "alternative" career! A nominal fee of, say, $0.10 / SI page - price of a photocopy from way back, kids - would immediately bring $30K into the journal's coffers. A $3 "data verification" fee per manuscript brings another $21K. Not big money, but we're now into the realm of serious subsidy for someone's salary.


Readers: Would you pay $7.00 to submit your OL manuscript?

* [(Dec 21 + July 6 + Jan 6 + Apr 20) - (corrections + editorials)] = 318 articles / 4 = 79.5

OL's Smith Stands Up for Data Integrity

Did you know Org Lett had hired a full-time Data Analyst? I didn't.

All I can say is: What took so long?

Esteemed professor and Editor Amos Smith wrote a terse, pointed piece for OL ASAP yesterday. Titled "Data Integrity," it explores ethical conduct for article submissions in the wake of several (!!) recently uncovered instances of data manipulation. Smith doesn't pull punches:

"Even if the experimental yields and conclusions of a study are not affected, ANY manipulation of research data casts doubts on the overall integrity and validity of the work reported."

What do authors say when faced with the facts? They throw their students under the bus!

"In some of the cases that we have investigated further, the  Corresponding Author asserted that a student had edited the spectra without the Corresponding Author's knowledge. This is not an acceptable excuse!"

(Perhaps we should label these "Sezen situations.")

I highly recommend reading the whole thing, if for no other reason than the righteous feeling of good-triumphing-over-evil washing over you by the end. For those interested in alternative #chemjobs, might "Data Analyst" be a pretty good use of your lab skillz?

Arsenic Life Wrap-Up: The Good, the 'Not-So-Good'

"Arsenic Life," a hot-button issue for much of the past year, reemerged this week with two new papers, one propitious, and one, well...not so much.

GFAJ-1 bacteria
Source: nasa.gov

As covered by Curious Wavef(n), the first paper related Prof. Rosie Redfield's well-documented efforts coaxing the GFAJ-1 strain to flourish in arsenic-rich media, which, if successful, would imply arsenate linkages in the bacterial DNA. Redfield bursts the bubble nicely, utilizing multiple tools (LC-MS, cell growth assays, gels) to cast doubt on the earlier study, even mentioning that most of the detected arsenate could be washed away with distilled water.

Well, if timing is everything, then the second #arseniclife publication really missed the boat. Last week, a commentary appeared in the open-access online journal Biomolecules, bearing the epic title From Phosphorus to Arsenic: Changing the Classic Paradigm for the Structure of Biomolecules. Heavy stuff!

This summary takes the opposite tack, casting "Dr. Wolfe-Simon's discovery" as a fighting underdog - viewed skeptically today, but enshrined and glorified by future generations much like Copernicus or Darwin (both name-dropped inside). The prose shakes the reader with thrilling, emphatic statements, lines you might find in a rousing stump speech or an action movie. A few choice selections:

"...Some have died as a result
of these discussions..."
Image Credit: Silver Lining

"It is no surprise that this work has come under what some may consider a brutal attack in the past year; the proposed repercussions almost beg of it."

"...members outside of the scientific community may view the criticisms and other events that have transpired as superfluous, vindictive, and outright scathing." 

"...the implications of [arsenic life] have the potential to shake the foundation of biology as we have known it for centuries."

 "This discovery...would be absolutely groundbreaking to all of science."

You get the point. These excesses, coupled with a few cut-and-paste sources (N.B. Don't include "page-access" dates in references) and a passing remark to Wolfe-Simon's potential scientific martyrdom, complete the commentary. Yesterday, several Twitter denizens, led by the industrious Carmen Drahl, noted a very familiar vibe to this piece. To borrow a phrase from Derek and Leonid, it sounded suspiciously like a "term paper," final reports students submit to wrap up specific college courses.

My feelings, reading Paper #2
Source: Jobbing Scriptwriter

Was it? A very strong maybe. Check out this editorial, culled from the Colorado State University Journal of Undergraduate Research  (p. 16), scribed by the lead author. Bears a rather striking homology to the Biomolecules piece, sources* and all. The second author, currently an undergraduate at Boston University, may have interacted with the CSU authors at a conference, or perhaps on a summer REU.

As corresponding author, Prof. Mark Brown (CSU) would, I'd believe, have final say over the manuscript. Did he check it against the lead author's previous work? The journal's Author Information section mentions that five external reviewers must be named, although "...the Editor will not necessarily approach them."

So, to round up this bizarre publishing escapade, we have undergraduate authors submitting previous work in an open-access, loosely-reviewed, and barely-edited online journal, all with the benediction of a faculty member? Sounds dubious...much like arsenate linkages in DNA.

*Can someone please tell me where to find Ed "Young" at Discover Blogs? : )


Update, 6.8.12 - Commenter Stuart Cantrill (Editor, Nature Chemistry) points out on Twitter that the original piece also misspelled "phosphorous" in the title. Sigh.