From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Sat May 3 03:21:00 2014 From: "Mikael Johansson mikael.johansson||iki.fi" To: CCL Subject: CCL: Name of authors during review ...!!! Message-Id: <-49988-140503031428-16274-MLGOo7+/4JcpIZMVUdpMig:server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: Mikael Johansson Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 10:14:19 +0300 (EEST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: Mikael Johansson [mikael.johansson,,iki.fi] Hello All, Just to add a few thoughts on this age-old debate. I agree that double-blind often in practice wouldn't be exactly that, because in most cases the authors can be identified, _if_ they are sufficiently established in the field. But for younger researchers, it could be beneficial, both in removing some of the possible bias against their work, as well as in perhaps making them (us) feel more confident about the fairness of the system. So I see no disadvantage of double-blind compared to single-blind, and some possible advantages. Zero-blind comes with the problems already discussed, where I doubt many younger non-tenured researchers would feel that openly criticizing the work of future grant/job reviewers would be worth it. It would probably be detrimental to science; if this would become the norm, I fear it would become much more common to accept bad papers just in order to either avoid retaliation, or for returns of favour. There is an interesting concept being promoted by the Frontiers journals, though. In this one, the referees are anonymous until they accept the paper. This might effectively avoid the problem of not daring to reject crap/sub-par science. If I got it right, the identity of a reviewer who rejects a paper will not be revealed to the authors: http://www.frontiersin.org/about/reviewsystem It will be interesting to see how the idea plays out. Maybe there's some glaring or subtle drawbacks to this system as well. Cheers, Mikael J. http://www.iki.fi/~mpjohans/ From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Sat May 3 11:16:00 2014 From: "Demetra Dimetrodon dpfiz- -hotmail.com" To: CCL Subject: CCL: ChemPhysChem: warning Message-Id: <-49989-140503031305-16195-sR7aJxqWE69zAeRO9RrZnw%a%server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: "Demetra Dimetrodon" Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 03:13:01 -0400 Sent to CCL by: "Demetra Dimetrodon" [dpfiz!=!hotmail.com] Beware of submitting articles to the journal: ChemPhysChem. It seems at first sight like a legitimate journal but what happened to me recently is completely unprofessional. The editor, Greta Heydenrych, who appears to have no other occupation, unlike at other high-profile journals, held on to my article for TWO MONTHS only to send it back with a message saying that nobody was willing to review it! All that time I thought that it was under review and I was about to inquire about why the process is taking so long when I received her vile and condescending message. The behaviour of the editor of ChemPhysChem is totally out of line. Her communication with me was extremely rude and condescending. The position of editor should in my opinion be occupied by an established, active researcher (usually a faculty member for a journal of this profile level) since usually these people have some basic level of scientific integrity. They certainly would not cause a huge delay in the dissemination of your research. I did not even receive any reply after I sent a complaint to members of the Editorial Board of ChemPhysChem either, which implies that this journal condones this unprofessional behaviour. Not that it matters, but the next journal I submitted it to, of a similar calibre, accepted my work virtually without any further demands. Just be warned that sending your manuscript to ChemPhysChem could result in a huge delay in dissemination of your scientific results - in my case two months. Then again, the editor of ChemPhysChem does not appear to be active in research at all, something which is completely unheard of for a high- profile journal. ---------- Demetra Dimetrodon From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Sat May 3 11:51:00 2014 From: "Jan Halborg Jensen jhjensen[-]chem.ku.dk" To: CCL Subject: CCL: Name of authors during review ...!!! Message-Id: <-49990-140503032617-18619-3nLX7QiRR61WocKSm1n0gw++server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: Jan Halborg Jensen Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 07:26:04 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: Jan Halborg Jensen [jhjensen.:.chem.ku.dk] I am with Andreas here. I also sign my reviews, and I have found I write better reviews (and generally on time!) for it. I think the *default* should be double-open, but that reviewers should have the option to review anonymous . However, the latter should be given extra close scrutiny be the editor to weed out ad hominen attacks or just lazy reviewing. However, no need to wait for journals to adopt this. Consider signing your next review and make science a little bit more open. Jan Jensen ________________________________________ > From: owner-chemistry+jhjensen==chem.ku.dk-x-ccl.net [owner-chemistry+jhjensen==chem.ku.dk-x-ccl.net] on behalf of Andreas Klamt klamt++cosmologic.de [owner-chemistry-x-ccl.net] Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 10:15 PM To: Jan Halborg Jensen Subject: CCL: Name of authors during review ...!!! Sent to CCL by: Andreas Klamt [klamt : cosmologic.de] Trying to anonymize the submitted articles is hopeless: Being experts in the field many reviewers will immediately know who wrote the submitted manuscript. This leads nowhere. Basically I vote for double-open. Indeed, I often already wrote my name into a review, because the authors would anyway have identified me as reviewer. If I have good arguments to criticize or reject an article, I have no problem to stand to these. I need not be protected by anonymity. But the problem is that this system would reduce the number of reviewers to those who are sufficiently independent. And this minority will most likely be unable to stand the flood of manuscripts. Really a hopeless situation: I am afraid, that we will have to live with the current system. Regards Andreas Am 02.05.2014 07:21, schrieb Francois Berenger berenger]|[riken.jp: > > Sent to CCL by: Francois Berenger [berenger+/-riken.jp] > I heard some computer science conferences do this: > submitted manuscripts are anonymized. > > On 05/02/2014 12:19 PM, tarzan p tarzan11_11..yahoo.com wrote: >> Sent to CCL by: "tarzan p" [tarzan11_11=-=yahoo.com] >> Dear All........ >> It is often(or probably always ...) that a submitted article to >> journal goes for a peer review. Of course the reviewers are >> confidential. Justified. >> But why is that the reviewers get to know the names of the authors >> and his affiliation during the review process ..? Unfair ...!!! >> Will it not put a sort of bias into the reviewers head ...?? >> Will it be not possible for the journal editors to adopt a policy of >> non-disclosure of the authors till the work is accepted...? >> >> I hope to get some views..... >> with best wishes and happy computing ....> >> > > -- Prof. Dr. Andreas Klamt CEO / Geschäftsführer COSMOlogic GmbH & Co. KG Imbacher Weg 46 D-51379 Leverkusen, Germany phone +49-2171-731681 fax +49-2171-731689 e-mail klamt-.-cosmologic.de web www.cosmologic.de [University address: Inst. of Physical and Theoretical Chemistry, University of Regensburg] HRA 20653 Amtsgericht Koeln, GF: Prof. Dr. Andreas Klamt Komplementaer: COSMOlogic Verwaltungs GmbH HRB 49501 Amtsgericht Koeln, GF: Prof. Dr. Andreas Klamthttp://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_messagehttp://www.ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtmlhttp://www.ccl.net/spammers.txt From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Sat May 3 12:25:00 2014 From: "Moein Goodarzi moein.goodarzi20 ~~ gmail.com" To: CCL Subject: CCL:G: How can I calculate vertical and adiabatic excitation energy? Message-Id: <-49991-140503110340-7801-TjCQz81GF3w6lBq8kP7yuA*server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: "Moein Goodarzi" Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 11:03:39 -0400 Sent to CCL by: "Moein Goodarzi" [moein.goodarzi20/a\gmail.com] I want to calculate vertical excitation energy and adiabatic excitation energy in gaussian. I donot know that what is difference between vertical excitation energy and adiabatic excitation energy?. I know only that should use from TD-SCF in gaussian. From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Sat May 3 13:01:00 2014 From: "Moein Goodarzi moein.goodarzi20|*|gmail.com" To: CCL Subject: CCL:G: TD-SCF in Gaussian 09 Message-Id: <-49992-140503111218-8056-46TsBtbBTvsGzHr6xM2k9g=server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: "Moein Goodarzi" Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 11:12:09 -0400 Sent to CCL by: "Moein Goodarzi" [moein.goodarzi20__gmail.com] I have studied general options of Time-dependent DFT in Gaussian 09. what are exact underestanding of singlet (solve only for singlet ecited states) and Triplet (solve only for Triplet ecited states) in general options Time-dependent DFT in Gaussian 09? From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Sat May 3 14:08:00 2014 From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?V=EDctor_Lua=F1a?= Cabal victor(_)fluor.quimica.uniovi.es" To: CCL Subject: CCL:G: How can I calculate vertical and adiabatic excitation energy? Message-Id: <-49993-140503140538-29872-2JdGlvhphhFByyZDIPJH4g=-=server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?V=EDctor_Lua=F1a?= Cabal Content-disposition: inline Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Date: Sat, 03 May 2014 20:03:46 +0200 MIME-version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: =?iso-8859-1?Q?V=EDctor_Lua=F1a?= Cabal [victor_+_fluor.quimica.uniovi.es] On Sat, May 03, 2014 at 11:03:39AM -0400, Moein Goodarzi moein.goodarzi20 ~~ gmail.com wrote: > > Sent to CCL by: "Moein Goodarzi" [moein.goodarzi20/a\gmail.com] > I want to calculate vertical excitation energy and adiabatic excitation energy in gaussian. I donot know that what is difference between vertical excitation energy and adiabatic excitation energy?. I know only that should use from TD-SCF in gaussian. > TMoein Goodarzi, Try to lern a little bit of using google: google: "adiabatic excitation energy" produces a good answer to your question: If you want to learn more about your question, look for a good book on molecular spectroscopy. Regards, Dr. Víctor Luaña From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Sat May 3 14:43:00 2014 From: "Michel Petitjean petitjean.chiral~~gmail.com" To: CCL Subject: CCL: ChemPhysChem: warning Message-Id: <-49994-140503125912-13493-WoKUWJBQMOd5BtJBRK0JtQ() server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: Michel Petitjean Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 18:59:06 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: Michel Petitjean [petitjean.chiral() gmail.com] Dear Demetra, It is hard to understand what happened without more information. First, waiting for two months before a rejection is not unusual (this is not a huge delay; some journals have much longer delays), and normally the editor is fully free to decide about acceptance/rejection, whatever reason is conveyed to the author. The reason "nobody is willing to review" is unusual, but it may hide something else. Please tell us the title of your paper plus some keywords, the name of your coauthors, and the journal in which it was accepted for publication (I assume that the content of the manuscript was unchanged). Ideally, if you accept, communicating us the abstract of your paper (how many pages is the manuscript long?), could help us to understand what happened. Did you suggest reviewers names? Usually this helps the editor to understand what is your field, thus helping to target potential reviewers (not necessarily the ones suggested by the authors). Did you ask to the editor if no reviewer responded or if some responded that they did not want to review (and in this case did they tell why), or simply, did you ask how many reviewers were contacted? If really the editor was incorrect, you should complain to the publisher, not to the board. Since you named the editor, it is important for the community to understand what happened, but at this time, more should be known before emitting any opinion about that editor. Kind regards, Michel Petitjean MTi, INSERM UMR-S 973, University Paris 7, 35 rue Helene Brion, 75205 Paris Cedex 13, France. Phone: +331 5727 8434; Fax: +331 5727 8372 E-mail: petitjean.chiral||gmail.com (preferred), michel.petitjean||univ-paris-diderot.fr http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.petitjean.html 2014-05-03 9:13 GMT+02:00 Demetra Dimetrodon dpfiz- -hotmail.com : > > Sent to CCL by: "Demetra Dimetrodon" [dpfiz!=!hotmail.com] > Beware of submitting articles to the journal: ChemPhysChem. It seems at first > sight like a legitimate journal but what happened to me recently is completely > unprofessional. > > The editor, Greta Heydenrych, who appears to have no other occupation, > unlike at other high-profile journals, held on to my article for TWO MONTHS > only to send it back with a message saying that nobody was willing to review it! > All that time I thought that it was under review and I was about to inquire > about why the process is taking so long when I received her vile and > condescending message. > > The behaviour of the editor of ChemPhysChem is totally out of line. Her > communication with me was extremely rude and condescending. > > The position of editor should in my opinion be occupied by an established, > active researcher (usually a faculty member for a journal of this profile level) > since usually these people have some basic level of scientific integrity. They > certainly would not cause a huge delay in the dissemination of your research. > > I did not even receive any reply after I sent a complaint to members of the > Editorial Board of ChemPhysChem either, which implies that this journal > condones this unprofessional behaviour. Not that it matters, but the next > journal I submitted it to, of a similar calibre, accepted my work virtually without > any further demands. > > Just be warned that sending your manuscript to ChemPhysChem could result > in a huge delay in dissemination of your scientific results - in my case two > months. Then again, the editor of ChemPhysChem does not appear to be > active in research at all, something which is completely unheard of for a high- > profile journal. > > ---------- > Demetra Dimetrodon > From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Sat May 3 16:13:00 2014 From: "Marcel Swart marcel.swart*o*icrea.cat" To: CCL Subject: CCL: ChemPhysChem: warning Message-Id: <-49995-140503161146-785-CdYAzEkq8rfHAkJGi4njlg,server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: Marcel Swart Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_CC4E4ADD-4957-44F5-B6F8-75486EA14643" Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 22:11:32 +0200 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\)) Sent to CCL by: Marcel Swart [marcel.swart%a%icrea.cat] --Apple-Mail=_CC4E4ADD-4957-44F5-B6F8-75486EA14643 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 I just wanted to add that highly high-profile journals like Angewandte, Nature Chemistry, have Editors that are *not* active in research, but I would doubt seriously that this would make them incompetent. Like Michel said, two months is nothing, it is not unusual to have a period of between 2 months and one year between first submission and final acceptance. It reminds me of an Editorial I=92ve recently = read, about how to write a paper and how to deal with the reviewing process. See: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/cm501152b Good luck with the paper! Marcel On 2014-05-03, at 09:13, Demetra Dimetrodon dpfiz- -hotmail.com = wrote: > Just be warned that sending your manuscript to ChemPhysChem could = result=20 > in a huge delay in dissemination of your scientific results - in my = case two=20 > months. Then again, the editor of ChemPhysChem does not appear to be=20= > active in research at all, something which is completely unheard of = for a high- > profile journal. >=20 > ---------- > Demetra Dimetrodon =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Prof. Dr. Marcel Swart ICREA Research Professor at Institut de Qu=EDmica Computacional i Cat=E0lisi Universitat de Girona Facultat de Ci=E8ncies Campus Montilivi 17071 Girona Catalunya (Spain) tel +34-972-418861 fax +34-972-418356 e-mail marcel.swart^^^icrea.cat marcel.swart^^^udg.edu web http://www.marcelswart.eu vCard addressbook://www.marcelswart.eu/MSwart.vcf =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D --Apple-Mail=_CC4E4ADD-4957-44F5-B6F8-75486EA14643 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 I just = wanted to add that highly high-profile journals like = Angewandte,
Nature Chemistry, have Editors that are *not* active in = research,
but I would doubt seriously that this would make = them incompetent.

Like Michel said, two months = is nothing, it is not unusual to have a
period of between 2 = months and one year between first submission
and final = acceptance. It reminds me of an Editorial I=92ve recently = read,
about how to write a paper and how to deal with the = reviewing process.

Good luck with = the paper!

Marcel

On = 2014-05-03, at 09:13, Demetra Dimetrodon dpfiz- -hotmail.com <owner-chemistry^^^ccl.net> = wrote:

Just be warned that sending your = manuscript to ChemPhysChem could result 
in a huge delay in dissemination of your scientific results = - in my case two 
months. Then again, the editor of ChemPhysChem does not = appear to be 
active in research at all, something which is completely = unheard of for a high-
profile journal.

----------
Demetra Dimetrodon


=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Prof= . Dr. Marcel Swart

ICREA Research Professor at
Institut de = Qu=EDmica Computacional i Cat=E0lisi
Universitat de = Girona

Facultat de Ci=E8ncies
Campus Montilivi
17071 = Girona
Catalunya = (Spain)

tel
+34-972-418861
fax
+34-972-418356
e-mailmarcel.swart^^^icrea.cat
marce= l.swart^^^udg.edu
web
http://www.marcelswart.eu
vCard



= --Apple-Mail=_CC4E4ADD-4957-44F5-B6F8-75486EA14643-- From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Sat May 3 18:18:00 2014 From: "Jim Kress jimkress35%gmail.com" To: CCL Subject: CCL: Name of authors during review ...!!! Message-Id: <-49996-140503180524-24720-zbt0gDvjpDKE5NIRfk+6cQ|a|server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: "Jim Kress" Content-Language: en-us Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 18:05:17 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: "Jim Kress" [jimkress35[A]gmail.com] " Remember that reviewers are volunteers and benevolent." Benevolence is an assumption that is not consistent with a few of the defenders of the "anonymous review" system that have commented herein. I salute the people who have responded that they sign their reviews. I applaud their personal and intellectual integrity in doing so. Those who undertake to guard the portals of Scientific soundness and integrity should be willing to place their name on their actions. To do otherwise smacks of pusillanimity. Jim -----Original Message----- > From: owner-chemistry+jimkress35==gmail.com!^!ccl.net [mailto:owner-chemistry+jimkress35==gmail.com!^!ccl.net] On Behalf Of Michel Petitjean petitjean.chiral::gmail.com Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 2:06 PM To: Kress, Jim Subject: CCL: Name of authors during review ...!!! Sent to CCL by: Michel Petitjean [petitjean.chiral() gmail.com] As a past editor-in-chief of two journals, please let me add a reason why anonymous review is useful. Often, authors are unhappy with reviews, and sometimes the editor is hassled by unhappy authors (fortunately, not often). It is part of the job of the editor to manage such situations (I did that). But imagine what could happen when a non anonymous reviewer is hassled by the author? You know, editors receive contributions from very diverse authors, not all fair, and even from sects (yes indeed). Remember that reviewers are volounteers and benevolent. If they should face to such authors, imagine the consequences, not only for the reviewers themselves, but for all the scientific community: would reviewers still accept to help? I agree that anonymous review can be criticized, but until now it has more advantages than drawbacks. About the double blind review, most time it is not useful, and this is discussed on the websites cited in a previous post. Nevertheless, possibly it could make sense for some maths journals, eventually as an author choice. May be that should be experienced. All my best, Michel Petitjean MTi, INSERM UMR-S 973, University Paris 7, 35 rue Helene Brion, 75205 Paris Cedex 13, France. Phone: +331 5727 8434; Fax: +331 5727 8372 E-mail: petitjean.chiral * gmail.com (preferred), michel.petitjean * univ-paris-diderot.fr http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.petitjean.html 2014-05-02 17:27 GMT+02:00 Jim Kress jimkress35]![gmail.com : > > Sent to CCL by: "Jim Kress" [jimkress35=-=gmail.com] Why should the > names of the reviewers be confidential? It is only reasonable, given > the level of personal and professional antipathy present in todays > "Science" that the authors of an article be allowed to see who > reviewed their work. As we have seen exposed in the media, e.g. on > the topic of "Global Warming", reviewers who object to your political > views will ignore the scientific aspects of your work and deny > publication, just on the basis of their personal animosity toward you and/or your politics. > > Authors should be allowed to ensure this type of nonscientific bias is > not allowed to interfere with the publication of their scientific work. > > Jim Kress > > -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-chemistry+jimkress35==gmail.com(-)ccl.net > [mailto:owner-chemistry+jimkress35==gmail.com(-)ccl.net] On Behalf Of > tarzan p tarzan11_11..yahoo.com > Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 11:19 PM > To: Kress, Jim > Subject: CCL: Name of authors during review ...!!! > > > Sent to CCL by: "tarzan p" [tarzan11_11=-=yahoo.com] Dear All........ > It is often(or probably always ...) that a submitted article to > journal goes for a peer review. Of course the reviewers are confidential. Justified. > But why is that the reviewers get to know the names of the authors and > his affiliation during the review process ..? Unfair ...!!! > Will it not put a sort of bias into the reviewers head ...?? > Will it be not possible for the journal editors to adopt a policy of > non-disclosure of the authors till the work is accepted...? > > I hope to get some views..... > with best wishes and happy computing > ....http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_messagehttp://www.ccl.net/ > chemistry/sub_unsub.shtmlhttp://www.ccl.net/spammers.txthttp://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_messagehttp://www.ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtmlhttp://www.ccl.net/spammers.txt