I am deeply concerned about the scientific future of chemistry, especially of synthetic organic chemistry. The newly formed scientific journal Chemistry & Biodiversity appears to be the good vehicle for my thoughts, and I hope a large number of chemists will join the discussion on the subject I present below. My critical assessment of how synthetic organic chemistry is currently pursued and published does not single out any particular laboratory or journal. Instead, it addresses a pervasive new attitude towards executing and publishing synthetic organic chemistry. Notably, the problem appears to be more within the organic chemistry community in the Western Hemisphere than elsewhere.
That we, indeed, have a problem became obvious as a result of discussions with older colleagues at various meetings. It was noted that the scientific quality of papers published in our field is decreasing in spite of the fact that the chemistry described, reagents, instrumentation, and other tools used have become more sophisticated. This holds true across the spectrum the so-called low-as well as high-impact journals. Specifically, the number of papers whose experimental results cannot be reproduced because of lack of data presented, as well as the number of compounds described for the first time that have not been properly characterized, is increasing at an alarming rate. Of the thousands of new compounds prepared every year, only a fraction has been prepared pure. Awareness that a compound cannot be considered pure if it does not produce correct analytical figures by combustion analysis, and that results of any further studies conducted with such materials (especially true for biological studies) may not be reliable, is fading. There is a tendency to substitute correct analytical figures with mass-spectral and/or NMR data. It is incredible that some journals accept, or even require, for wrong reasons, that authors include NMR data for new substances without nuclei-signal assignment. Where is, then, the proof of structure for such substances? Alternatively, when correct analytical data cannot be obtained for amorphous substances, molecular formulas are adjusted by solvation, and then correct analysis are reported for hydrates, hemihydrates, etc., which is scientifically unsound. I am well aware of many situations when correct analytical figures are virtually impossible to obtain, but it should not be acceptable to publish a synthetic paper describing preparation of a large number of simple compounds in large quantities without proper characterization. To crystallize compounds is often considered a waste of time. One can