Aussies think I’m insane because I only wear pants for funerals. And last two guys who died it was ‘golf course casual dress code anyhow’. I swear they look forward to ‘winter’ so they can wear the all black puffers, leggings and toukes.

Osmium sure does. Cat piss. Super distinctive.

For our PhD application reference portal thing at my outfit if a referee was ever silly enough to tick off that the student was in the top 5-10% of students that would put that student dead last of any applicant we’ve ever had.

should especially get rid of them for this purpose. Very glad don’t have that down here.

See also tenure letters where 100% of people are in the top 1% of performance.

That is true. I got to know some RSC staff editors and always happy to respond to them. I’d say that job is probably easier for academic editors, or maybe more that they’ve got a reputation that often proceeds them. I ‘knew’ many academic editors before i actually knew them for real.

Overall the question I ask myself before I submit any paper, because it is a dark, shitty world and we’ve built the worst possible system for ourselves to all collectively suffer in is:
Will having a paper in this journal make my grant reviewers potentially think less of me?

Chem Eur J is also doing same thing for what I assume is same reason (their IF collapsed), but the impact of getting an invite from a staff editor who’ve never met is much less for me at least. As an ECR however I’d have been rapt to get any invite from Chem Eur J. as it has good reputation in field

What they have though that you might not is editors who are also active academics in all the major market countries (including india and China) who are colleagues and personal friends of dozens of very good scientists in those major market countries.

Organometallics is actively doing just this to get out of the impact factor death spiral they found themself in. The thing they are doing that is (I think) working is getting academic editors to be sending personal invitations to get people to send em stuff again. And brought back 2 page comms.

It’s all about reputation for me. I would never submit to ‘Molecules’ in a million years because I don’t want my name attached to MDPI crap, even though its impact factor is (somehow) better than Chemical Communications, which has an excellent reputation and is a badge of honour to be in.

This is my point and seems to be what has happened. I wish I’d coined the term chalcogen bonding in my PhD, which turns out to have been all about chalcogen bonding!

Not to be that guy…but I will anyway…my university is substantially larger than Harvard. Assuming normal market conditions only the interest on their endowment is around 10x our total annual revenue.

We been doing this for years. 10 groups…3 stipends. Fight!

This begs the question does it (or halogen bonding) need a special name? I only see weakish Lewis acids making weakish adducts as would be expected, that can of course be used to do many interesting things.

My plan is to be so far away so fast you wouldn’t hear it if they were shooting at me with howitzers.

And then of course Triels. For groups 13 and 14 the main-groupers has a failure of imagination at some point.

Tetrals is correct. Ask me what I think about the new(ish) concept of ‘tetral bonding’