Editorial
David
Alcantara1,
Rafael Prado Gotor 2.
1)
Center for Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, MGH-Harvard
Medical School, 13th St. Blg149, Charlestown, MA 02129, USA 2)
Department of Physical-Chemistry, University of Seville, Profesor
Garcia Gonzalez, S/N, 41012, Seville, Spain
Dear
readers of the All
Results Journals:Chem,
We
are pleased to introduce you to The
All Results Journals: Chem
(All Res. J. Chem.). A very particular journal, as it publishes fully
indexed chemical articles and reviews that challenge current models,
tenets and dogmas. This journal represents the first open access
source for chemical research concerning negative results and will be
a valuable resource for researchers all over the world, including
those who are already experts and those entering the field.
The
All Results Journals: Chem
immediate goal is to provide scientists with responsible and balanced
information in order to avoid unproductive synthetic routes, improve
experimental designs and economical decisions. Many journals skew
towards only publishing “positive” data; that is, data that
successfully proves a hypothesis. The
All Results Journals: Chem
is the home for negative or “secondary” data: experimental
documentation of hypotheses that turn out not to be true, or other
experiments that do not lead to an advance of a specific hypothesis
but are nevertheless a true rendering of that experiment. For
example, if a researcher sets up an organic reaction and a variety of
molecules do not react in exactly those conditions, it would be very
useful for other researchers to know this (to avoid time and wasting
money).
There
is a huge mass of experimental data locked up in lab notebooks that
could be of great service to the scientific community at large. Many
experiments fail to produce results or expected discoveries. Some
have even pointed out the different types of negative data we can
obtain.1
This high percentage of “failed” research can still generate
high quality knowledge. The main objective of The
All Results Journals: Chem
is to recover and publish these valuable pieces of scientific
information.
As
we publish negative results, the newer generation of researchers will
not waste their time and money repeating the same studies and finding
the same results (negative in this case). We believe that negative
results are high-level pieces of knowledge that deserves to be
published.
The
All Results Journals: Chem
is a peer reviewed journal developed to publish original, innovative
and novel research articles resulting in negative results. This
peer-reviewed scientific journal publishes theoretical and empirical
papers that report negative findings and research failures in
Chemistry and all related sub-fields. Submissions should have a
negative focus, which means the output of research yielded in
negative results is being given more preference. All theoretical and
methodological perspectives are welcomed. We also encourage the
submission of short papers/communications presenting counter-examples
to usually accepted conjectures or to published papers.
The
tip of the iceberg problem and The All Results Journals: Chem
Normally
when presenting a paper/study only a small part of what the
researcher have done is shown; the negative results are not reported
(biased). This is not favorable to advancing Science. Some authors
have pointed out elsewhere the problem of publication bias, a well
known phenomenon in clinical literature, in which positive results
have a better chance of being published, are published earlier, and
are published in journals with higher impact factors.2
We truly believe that today a bigger problem is the submission bias,
that is, the authors’ resistance to publish negative results.
Science is a deeply frustrating pursuit. One reason we’re so
resistant to publish negative results might be that researchers want
their competitors to think they succeed at every project designed.
Other times we get negative results and both, don't find a place
where all these results can fit properly and/or there is no specific
journal to publish only negative findings. Another reason is rooted
in the way the human brain works. We carefully edit our reality,
searching for evidence that confirms what we already believe. The
problem with science, then, isn’t that some experiments have
negative results — it’s that most negative results are ignored
and never published. There is another important reason: what happens
with the results that are not 100% reproducible? We all have
performed experiments that only work 6 times of 10. Where do these
experiments fit? Are these experiments less worthy to communicate?
Last
but not least, authors might not consider the undertaking to be worth
the effort. For The
All Results Journals: Chem
these experiments have high value because they will avoid wastes of
time and could help prevent repetitions worldwide.
Publication
of the negative results in The
All Results Journals: Chem will
have two main positive aspects for a scientist:
1.
The All Results
Journals: Chem
paper can be presented as a proof of ALL the work that has been done
before reaching an original result, and this can be helpful, v.gr.,
when referees in others journals asked for more data.
2.
Others’ negative results could also be helpful for an author, if
this prevents him from duplicating useless methodologies. This
feedback will be essential for boosting authors research.
The
question of why we are named The All Results Journals
Many
people have asked us why we are named The
All Results Journals.
The name is related to the so-called “file drawer” problem.3
Of all experiments conducted (in all fields, not only Chemistry),
just the tip of the iceberg are being published; only positive
results. The All
Results Journals: Chem
target to publish rigorously performed chemical studies producing
negative results. The
All Results Journals
are trying to get out the water the complete iceberg (the whole
study, showing "All Results" of the author, the complete
picture of his research topic, the real job done, not only the
positive outcomes). Scientists have the responsibility to study
Nature and report everything, and this includes reporting the
negative findings. Even more: the research projects might have been
funded by public agencies, and that means public money... In part,
funding agencies have some responsibility, they should also
incentivize the publishing of all results (specially negative
results) not only positive. Naturally someone can think it would also
bring more bureaucracy to the system, but this might be another topic
for a next editorial.
This
problematic is the starting point of The
All Results Journals: Chem.
Considering that all results are good results, our target is to bring
out all the results that have already been obtained but not published
(the negative ones). Exposing the whole iceberg, the only way to
improve Science and one of our biggest commitments.
In
this issue
In
this first issue of the journal, we published two articles related to
the experimental determination of values of CMC (critical micelle
concentration) on bile salt solutions and to stereoselective
organocatalyst, respectively.
Bile
salts, natural amphiphilic compounds synthesized in the liver and
stored in the gallbladder, are the most important natural
surfactants. Unlike ordinary surfactants bile salts do not possess
the polar head groups and the non-polar aliphatic tail. They exhibit
planar polarity with hydroxyl groups generally located on one face
and methyl groups on the opposite. For this reason the shape of the
bile salt aggregates is different from classical surfactant micelles.
In this sense, the aggregation feature and the shape of the micelles
of the bile anions are different from those of common alkyl
surfactants. In their article, Professor P. Perez-Tejeda and her
colleagues have studied the aggregation behaviour of cholate and
deoxycholate anions (as sodium salts) in aqueous solutions. They used
TMA-DPH (NNN-Trimethyl-4-(6-phenyl-1, 3,5-hexatriene-1-yl)
phenylammonium-p-toluenesulfonate) as a probe molecule in order to
obtain information about the CMC considering the shifts of TMA-DPH
absorption spectrum as a function of bile salt concentration.
Recently
there have been studies of electron transfer reactions between two
metal complexes in the presence of different types of receptors (DNA,
micelles cyclodextrins, bile salt aggregates, etc.). From the
analysis of these charge transfer processes, usually from the rate
constant variation when the concentration of a receptor changes, it
is possible to determine the free energy of binding between the
receptor and one or both reactants (ligands). For this purpose, the
two states model (free ligand and associated ligand to the receptor)
can be used as a starting point. The advantage of using an
electron-transfer process as a probe resides in its apparent
simplicity: in this reaction an electron is transferred from a donor
to an acceptor, without breaking or forming new bonds, a pure
electron-transfer reaction and one of the simplest chemical
processes. Unlike other receptors, for the cases of alkyl surfactant
micelles and bile salt aggregates, it is necessary to know CMC values
and if these concentrations change in the presence of the reactants
(ligands). The authors have been confronted with the need to
determine CMC values of bile salts in the presence of a cationic
metal complex such as [Ru(NH3)5pz]2+ (pz=pyrazine) to explain
previous results concerning to the electron transfer reaction between
[Ru(NH3)5pz]2+ (pz=pyrazine) and [Co(C2O4)3]3- in the presence of
these amphiphilic compounds. The studies using the probe molecule
(TMA-DPH) show the existence of two CMCs for two types of bile salts,
NaC and NaDC. However the author states that results can also be
explained taking into account a single CMC due to the sigmoid curve
observed for the shifts of TMA-DPH absorption spectrum as a function
of bile salt concentration. That is, the two concentrations of NaC
and NaDC that cause abrupt changes in the positions (wavelengths) of
the TMA-DPH spectrum can also be taken as the beginning and the end
of the aggregation process rather than as two CMCs. In fact, a
sigmoidal dependence is also characteristic of common alkyl
surfactant micelles in which only a single CMC instead of two is
considered. In this sense the authors explain how the probe molecule
(TMA-DPH) does not provide sufficient information on the existence of
the secondary aggregates of bile salts. Although the method proposed
by the authors is suitable for the determination of CMC in the
presence of other ligands different from surfactants theirself, the
authors reflect the negative results obtained in distinguishing
between different types of CMC or different structural aggregates.
These results state that the probe molecule (TMA-DPH) does not
provide sufficient information on the existence of the secondary
aggregates of bile salts.
The
second paper of this first issue of All.
Res. J. Chem. focus
on the development of stereoselective organocatalysts.
Organocatalysis have reached the standards of modern well-established
asymmetric reactions in terms of chemical efficiency and selectivity.
In the first part, the mini-review of Dr. Bernal and Monge, describes
the development of the J�rgensen catalyst highlighting the
importance of analyzing negative results for the development of new
improved catalysts To do this, they use the example of O-TMS
protected diarylprolinols. In asymmetric catalysis, as in others
branches of Chemistry, many experiments are necessary in order to
design and optimize a process. In this regard, the analysis of the
results concerning reactivity and enantioselectivity is highly time
demanding and here lies the importance of careful examination of all
the negative results.
Asymmetric
catalysis corresponds to a subject that has been extensively studied
for several decades. It is a topic that exercises the interest of teh
many sub-sections of chemistry from synthetic chemist to catalytic
chemists. The main drive has been to find new, exciting routes to
chiral molecules. In the first introductory part the authors reflect
how among the different ways to synthesize chiral molecules,
asymmetric catalysis represents the most efficient strategy. As
examples of asymmetric aminocatalysis, connection between enamine and
iminium catalysis is described and also the general mechanisms for
both. It is showed the enormous possibilities of aminocatalysis and
how the field reached its maturity over 2005, when J�rgensen and
co-workers reported on the synthesis of a new class of general
organocatalysts: trimethylsilyl (TMS) O-protected diarylprolinols.
The authors accurately reflect how their success came up step by step
from careful observation and analysis of negative results. The family
of O-TMS protected diarylprolinols has found wide applicability in
organocatalysis and nowadays, commercially available, contribute to
the fast-growing research field with a scope that know goes beyond
aminocatalyzed reactions. In the last part of the minireview the
authors highlight the importance of analyzing negative results for
some important α-functionalization of aldehydes: α-fluorination,
α-arylation of aldehydes, 1,4-conjugated additions and the direct
Mannich reaction using acetaldehyde. Using the example of O-TMS
protected diarylprolinols they show the development of new improved
catalysts, starting from erroneous synthetic routes.
These
two articles open the venue for new submissions to the journal;
comments on the articles are also welcomed and our registered readers
are invited to send them to foster debate.
Conclusion
Scientists
spend much of their time doing work that doesn’t get published. The
time and money spent to produce such data (that we like to call them
“secondary data”) are essentially wasted. Should we not make an
effort to increase our society’s return on its investment? The
All Results Journals: Chem
is taking it. Our goal is to establish an online medium for the
publication of the negative results that otherwise may be lost. Now,
we request the collaboration of researchers to succeed.
References
1.
Patil, C.; Siegel, V., Disease
Models Mechanisms,
2009,
2, 521-525.
2.
Dubben, H. H.; Beck-Bornholdt, H. P., BMJ,
2005,
331, (7514), 433-4.
3.
Scargle, J. D., Journal
of Scientific Exploration,
2000,
14, (1), 91-106.