I don't really understand how coffee, lacking heavy metals, can effectively give contrast in the electron microscope. I can't access the paper but the available parts didn't seem to explain how this works.
Uranyl acetate for staining is typically depleted and unless you have regulatory issues I don't think the radiation is a big concern, especially when you compare to the very serious toxicity of OsO4 (vapors can react with your eyes and blind you).
Interesting and makes sense! I know nothing but what I read from the stain description haha. OsO4 seems incredibly nasty. So do a few other of the stains!
Norman Borlaug probably comes close. H. Trendley Dean was also impactful on a large scale, while its seemingly less important it helps a lot of people.
Random events are the worst. I was driving through Bend, OR and planned to grab a hotel room but everything was completely booked. Ended up just driving up a random forest road (public land, legal to camp) and sleeping in my tent. Was walking around with my headlamp in the night and some cops came by and asked what I was up to since people are often doing drugs there. Great. They came by and woke me up during the night again and I asked them to please keep record that I'm not up to anything so I could sleep.
That would be tricky, I often submitted to multiple high impact journals going down the list until someone accepted it. You try to ballpark where you can go but it can be worth aiming high. Maybe this isn't a problem and there should be payment for the efforts to screen the paper but then I would expect the reviewers to be paid for their time.
I mean your methodology also sounds suspect. You're just going down a list until it sticks. You don't care where it ends up (I'm sure within reason) just as long as it is accepted and published somewhere (again, within reason).
No different from applying to jobs. Much like companies, there are a variety of journals with varying levels of prestige or that fit your paper better/worse. You don't know in advance which journals will respond to your paper, which ones just received submissions similar to yours, etc.
Plus, the t in me from submission to acceptance/rejection can be long. For cutting edge science, you can't really afford to wait to hear back before applying to another journal.
All this to say that spamming 1,000 journals with a submission is bad, but submitting to the journals in your field that are at least decent fits for your paper is good practice.
Scientists are incentivized to publish in as high-ranking a journal as possible. You’re always going to have at least a few journals where your paper is a good fit, so aiming for the most ambitious journal first just makes sense.
It's standard practice, nothing suspect about their approach - and you won't go lower and lower and lower still because at some point you'll be tired of re-formatting, or a doctoral candidate's funding will be used up, or the topic has "expired" (= is overtaken by reality/competition).
The SDS here may not be sufficient to deformulate as many of the CAS# reported are generic and represent a broad class of compounds. Probably easier to just go run it on a GC.
Fertilizer returns to the sea or is consumed by people and then returned to the sea. I think GP was worried about something that permanently locks phosphorus away.
reply