RESUMO
The varying quality of scientific reports is a well-recognized problem and often results from a lack of standardization and transparency in scientific publications. This situation ultimately leads to prominent complications such as reproducibility issues and the slow uptake of newly developed synthetic methods for pharmaceutical and agrochemical applications. In recent years, various impactful approaches have been advocated to bridge information gaps and to improve the quality of experimental protocols in synthetic organic publications. Here we provide a critical overview of these strategies and present the reader with a versatile set of tools to augment their standard procedures. We formulate eight principles to improve data management in scientific publications relating to data standardization, reproducibility and evaluation, and encourage scientists to go beyond current publication standards. We are aware that this is a substantial effort, but we are convinced that the resulting improved data situation will greatly benefit the progress of chemistry.
RESUMO
Assessing the outcomes of chemical reactions in a quantitative fashion has been a cornerstone across all synthetic disciplines. Classically approached through empirical optimization, data-driven modelling bears an enormous potential to streamline this process. However, such predictive models require significant quantities of high-quality data, the availability of which is limited: Main reasons for this include experimental errors and, importantly, human biases regarding experiment selection and result reporting. In a series of case studies, we investigate the impact of these biases for drawing general conclusions from chemical reaction data, revealing the utmost importance of "negative" examples. Eventually, case studies into data expansion approaches showcase directions to circumvent these limitations-and demonstrate perspectives towards a long-term data quality enhancement in chemistry.