Blog Syn is a new chemistry blog where chemists post their attempts to reproduce reactions from the literature. Each post starts with the following disclaimer:
The following experiments do not constitute rigorous peer review, but rather illustrate typical yields obtained and observations gleaned by trained synthetic chemists attempting to reproduce literature procedures…
I disagree completely. What could be more rigorous than actually trying a reaction?
So far there are three posts. The first gave a lower yield than reported. The second was “moderately reproducible”. The paper omitted details essential to the reaction’s success. The third was “difficult to reproduce” and is well worth reading—there’s a great response from one of the authors, Prof. Phil Baran.
It’s unacceptable for anyone to publish a paper without all the information necessary to replicate the results. It wastes researchers’ time and money. I’ve written before about my difficulties trying to replicate results. It’s infuriating. How do papers like this slip through peer review?
I suspect some authors don’t really know why a reaction gives a particular product, especially in nanoparticle synthesis. They manage to pull something off a few times and publish their findings, but (unknowingly) neglect parameters crucial for other researchers to be able to reproduce it. It could be something seemingly trivial, like the method used to wash the glassware. The next researcher does it differently because it’s not mentioned in the paper and gets a different result.
The only way to deal with this is for reviewers to demand thorough experimental sections. (But to do so they must have a good understanding of typical experimental procedures. This is a problem if your reviewer hasn’t been in the lab for years.)
An alternative scenario could be that the researchers, in the early stages of the work, find that doing X doesn’t work. Later they find doing Y does work. Y gets published. X stays in the laboratory notebook.
X is a negative result. On it’s own, it’s not very useful. Loads of attempted reactions don’t work. But in the context of the positive result (i.e. the paper) the negative result is actually very valuable to anyone who wants to repeat the paper. Serious consideration should be given to including them in the supplementary information.
Experimental methods are grossly oversimplified. We like things to be elegant and simple, but chemistry is complicated. There’s no excuse not to include more information because everything is published online and space constraints aren’t a problem.
Blog Syn shows that subtleties in chemistry are important. We should all acknowledge that in our own papers and demand that others do the same.