Next Article in Journal
28-[1-(3-(Propionyloxy)propyl)-1H-1,2,3-triazol-4-yl]carbonylbetulin
Previous Article in Journal
8,13-Dimethylicosa-9,11-diyne-8,13-diol
 
 
Short Note
Peer-Review Record

4,4-Bis(2-ethylhexyl)-6-(9-(2-ethylhexyl)-2,3,4,4a,9,9a-hexahydro-1H-carbazol-6-yl)-4H-cyclopenta[2,1-b:3,4-b′]dithiophene-2-carbaldehyde

Molbank 2022, 2022(4), M1486; https://doi.org/10.3390/M1486
by Maxim S. Mikhailov 1,2, Olga O. Ustimenko 1,3, Ekaterina A. Knyazeva 1,* and Oleg A. Rakitin 1
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Molbank 2022, 2022(4), M1486; https://doi.org/10.3390/M1486
Submission received: 20 October 2022 / Revised: 3 November 2022 / Accepted: 4 November 2022 / Published: 8 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Organic Synthesis)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors describe the synthesis and structural study on a new, extended polyheterocyclic compound which can be of potential importance for practical applications as an organic component of solar cell composites.

Experimental work has carefully been performed and pure product was isolated by column chromatography in good yield. Collected spectroscopic data are correctly interpreted and successfully used for solution of the structure of this oily material.

The presented work can be of importance for a circle of readers interested in applications of modern methods of organic synthesis (the Suzuki cross-coupling reactions), methods of synthesis of N- and S-heterocycles, as well as in new, organic compounds for application in materials chemistry.

The manuscript is well prepared the list of references does not contain an large number self-citations. For all these reasons, in my opinion there is not a serious reason to recommend any revision in the current version of this manuscript.

Final conclusion – the manuscript can be recommended for publication without revision.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Final conclusion – the manuscript can be recommended for publication without revision.

Response from authors.

The authors are grateful to the reviewer for a kind and highly professional review. There are no issues to reply.

Reviewer 2 Report

  • The article is well written and explains the results with clear experimental data. The references are well organized.  
  • I suggest minor revisions:

 The NMR characterization is incorrect. It is necessary to review the integrals of H1-NMR digitized spectrum since the number of protons is lower than those really presents (67) in the structure and also the number of carbons in the digitized spectrum is lower than the real one.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

The authors are grateful to the reviewer for a kind and highly professional review.

Point 1.

The NMR characterization is incorrect. It is necessary to review the integrals of H1-NMR digitized spectrum since the number of protons is lower than those really presents (67) in the structure and also the number of carbons in the digitized spectrum is lower than the real one.

Response from authors.

NMR spectra were revised as suggested by the reviewer in the paper and in the Supporting Information.

Back to TopTop