Next Article in Journal
RNA-Cleaving DNAzymes: Old Catalysts with New Tricks for Intracellular and In Vivo Applications
Previous Article in Journal
Highly Efficient Synthesis of 2,5-Dihydroxypyridine using Pseudomonas sp. ZZ-5 Nicotine Hydroxylase Immobilized on Immobead 150
 
 
Review
Peer-Review Record

N-Heterocyclic Carbene Catalysis under Oxidizing Conditions

Catalysts 2018, 8(11), 549; https://doi.org/10.3390/catal8110549
by Krzysztof Dzieszkowski and Zbigniew Rafiński *
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Catalysts 2018, 8(11), 549; https://doi.org/10.3390/catal8110549
Submission received: 17 October 2018 / Revised: 13 November 2018 / Accepted: 14 November 2018 / Published: 16 November 2018

Round  1

Reviewer 1 Report

The review is particularly interesting as it reports the organocatalysis of N-heterocyclic carbene under oxidizing conditions. 

The literature cited provides a good overview of various synthetic procedures operating with different mechanisms. offering the possibility to easily learn new methods to implement the possibilities of modern organic chemistry.

In the opinion of this referee the work can interest a wide audience of researchers and can be accepted for publication on Catalysts

Author Response

The English language has been improved, we have commissioned a professional language correction in MDPI.

Reviewer 2 Report

<span style="color: rgb(33, 33, 33); ;Segoe UI", "Segoe WP", Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif, serif, EmojiFont; ; text-decoration: none;">1. Authors need to add yields and nature of Ar in  Figure 4

2. Include Deng`s group reaction and mentioned it in the caption

3. Authors have to correct the line nos where proper meaning cannot be deciphered like Line no: 82 In turn in, line no 96: Especially worth nothing is the research.

4. Authors should maintain uniformity through out manuscript while explaining the caption below figures (Use either et al. or co workers).

5. Authors need to carefully check the "grammatical tense" through out the manuscript and should be modified accordingly.

6. Authors are not consistent in explaining the literature work for ex: Work of Maki and Scheidt, Sudalai etc have not been explained in detail using figures. Whereas Figure 18 was explained in more detailed way. Hence I request authors to be uniform through out the manuscript and add the work contributed by the scientists clearly so that the readers will be benefited.

7. Authors have not included some notable works like "1. Org. Lett., 2013, 15 (9), pp 2088–2091" by Yutaka Ukaji, 2. Journal of Organic Chemistry (2018), 83(5), 2966-2970 by Song et al, 3. Carbene-catalyzed enantioselective oxidative coupling of enals and di(hetero)arylmethanes published in Chemical Science and some more. Hence I request them to add the work and their references at appropriate place.

8. As a suggestion, I insist authors to use different color instead of green as they are not highly visible.

9. IS there any time period they are covering in the article, if so it has to come out explicitly.

10. Authors can include the future direction and any significant application in the conclusion section.

Author Response

I would like to take this opportunity to express my sincere thanks to the all reviewers who identified areas of my manuscript that needed corrections or modification. We have introduced a number of changes in the text, taking into account the comments of the reviewer. The English language has been improved, we have commissioned a professional language correction in MDPI. In addition to the color change of the drawings, we have made all the recommendations of the reviewer.

Back to TopTop