ECAB member Mรกtรฉ Bezdek t.co/FjAni1RhVZ favorite @helvchimacta.bsky.social article is the one of Alex Adronov because the authors elegantly craft a polymer with affinity for metallic tubes, yielding cleaner dispersions and films with enhanced conductivity doi.org/10.1002/hlca...
11.12.2025 16:52 โ ๐ 3 ๐ 1 ๐ฌ 0 ๐ 0
Delighted to share our paper in @jacs.acspublications.org on ฯ-extended Ru-COUBPY photosensitizers enabling one-photon 780 nm NIR in vivo #PDT. Fantastic collaboration with the Marchan Lab
doi.org/10.1021/jacs...
08.12.2025 09:55 โ ๐ 16 ๐ 3 ๐ฌ 0 ๐ 0
Diversifying the triquinazine scaffold of a Janus kinase inhibitor
The exploration of novel three-dimensional scaffolds remains essential for expanding chemical space and discovering new bioactive molecules. Here, we describe a robust synthetic strategy that enables ...
๐ Our latest paper "Diversifying the Triquinazine Scaffold of a Janus Kinase Inhibitor" by Kleni Mulliri, Kris Meier, Johanna-Dorothea Feuchter, Sacha Javor, Matheus A. Meirelles and Jean-Louis Reymond is published on RSC Medicinal Chemistry! Read the full version here ๐ pubs.rsc.org/en/content/a...
05.12.2025 12:50 โ ๐ 6 ๐ 2 ๐ฌ 0 ๐ 0
Bioorthogonal Photocatalytic Protein Labeling and Cross-Linking Enabled by Stabilized Ketyl Radicals
Radical reactions offer transformative potential in biological contexts but remain constrained by poor selectivity and off-target reactivity. We address these limitations through visible-light photoca...
Our latest JACS @jacs.acspublications.org paper is out: Atomic-level precision protein labeling achieved in live cells using visible-light catalysis. This technology, based on stabilized ketyl radicals, provides a 'molecular ruler' to map protein dynamics and advance precision medicine.
30.11.2025 03:47 โ ๐ 7 ๐ 1 ๐ฌ 0 ๐ 0
Opticial Control of Cholesterol, attempting to stay as close to the original as possible. Congratulations to Michael Zott, who defined and spearheaded this study, and to our wonderful collaborator Luca Laraia!
28.11.2025 11:40 โ ๐ 16 ๐ 5 ๐ฌ 0 ๐ 0
www.organic-chemistry.org/abstracts/li...
A formal (3+2)-cycloaddition of donor-acceptor cyclopropanes and ammonium thiocyanate
28.11.2025 12:46 โ ๐ 2 ๐ 1 ๐ฌ 0 ๐ 0
SiteโSelective Peptide and Protein Functionalization with Cyclopropenium Cations
A cysteine-selective bioconjugation using aromatic cyclopropenium cations is reported. The reaction proceeds rapidly under aqueous conditions, enabling site-selective installation of tetrasubstituted...
Interesting paper by the group of Marcos Suero in @angewandtechemie.bsky.social. They developed a #bioconjugation reaction to thiols using cyclopropenium cations. The resulting product on cysteine can be further modified using a thiol-ene reaction.
onlinelibrary.wiley....
#ChemSky #ChemBio
28.11.2025 14:00 โ ๐ 9 ๐ 1 ๐ฌ 0 ๐ 0
The current #1 Bestseller of Helv. Chim. Acta, the Journal of the Swiss Chemical Society, founded 1917, is our paper with the groups of Thomas Poulsen (Aarhus, Denmark) and Oliver Thorn-Seshold (Dresden, Germany): Thank you so much for reading!
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/1522...
22.11.2025 11:06 โ ๐ 9 ๐ 2 ๐ฌ 0 ๐ 0
We are able to put two different cofactors in one protein scaffold and make them do catalysis together. It is amazing that it actually works. Chemchat chemsky
20.11.2025 19:19 โ ๐ 15 ๐ 3 ๐ฌ 1 ๐ 0
https://doi.org/10.1002/hlca.202400182
ECAB member Emmanuelle Allouche www.siegfried.ch favorite @helvchimacta.bsky.social article is the one of @novartis.bsky.social because it describes the development of a safe and scalable difluoromethylation of 3-hydroxypyridines using continuous-flow technology doi.org/10.1002/hlca...
17.11.2025 10:24 โ ๐ 2 ๐ 1 ๐ฌ 0 ๐ 0
In our new review in Helv. Chim. Acta, we summarize the first decade of CPDs โ cell-penetrating poly(disulfide)s - comprehensively. It was gratifying to see how useful their thiol-mediated uptake has become in practice, also in living animals.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/...
17.11.2025 06:45 โ ๐ 5 ๐ 2 ๐ฌ 0 ๐ 0
A table showing profit margins of major publishers. A snippet of text related to this table is below.
1. The four-fold drain
1.1 Money
Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for
whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who
created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis,
which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024
alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit
margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher
(Elsevier) always over 37%.
Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most
consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial
difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor &
Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American
researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The
Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3
billion in that year.
A figure detailing the drain on researcher time.
1. The four-fold drain
1.2 Time
The number of papers published each year is growing faster than the scientific workforce,
with the number of papers per researcher almost doubling between 1996 and 2022 (Figure
1A). This reflects the fact that publishersโ commercial desire to publish (sell) more material
has aligned well with the competitive prestige culture in which publications help secure jobs,
grants, promotions, and awards. To the extent that this growth is driven by a pressure for
profit, rather than scholarly imperatives, it distorts the way researchers spend their time.
The publishing system depends on unpaid reviewer labour, estimated to be over 130 million
unpaid hours annually in 2020 alone (9). Researchers have complained about the demands of
peer-review for decades, but the scale of the problem is now worse, with editors reporting
widespread difficulties recruiting reviewers. The growth in publications involves not only the
authorsโ time, but that of academic editors and reviewers who are dealing with so many
review demands.
Even more seriously, the imperative to produce ever more articles reshapes the nature of
scientific inquiry. Evidence across multiple fields shows that more papers result in
โossificationโ, not new ideas (10). It may seem paradoxical that more papers can slow
progress until one considers how it affects researchersโ time. While rewards remain tied to
volume, prestige, and impact of publications, researchers will be nudged away from riskier,
local, interdisciplinary, and long-term work. The result is a treadmill of constant activity with
limited progress whereas core scholarly practices โ such as reading, reflecting and engaging
with othersโ contributions โ is de-prioritized. What looks like productivity often masks
intellectual exhaustion built on a demoralizing, narrowing scientific vision.
A table of profit margins across industries. The section of text related to this table is below:
1. The four-fold drain
1.1 Money
Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for
whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who
created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis,
which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024
alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit
margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher
(Elsevier) always over 37%.
Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most
consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial
difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor &
Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American
researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The
Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3
billion in that year.
The costs of inaction are plain: wasted public funds, lost researcher time, compromised
scientific integrity and eroded public trust. Today, the system rewards commercial publishers
first, and science second. Without bold action from the funders we risk continuing to pour
resources into a system that prioritizes profit over the advancement of scientific knowledge.
We wrote the Strain on scientific publishing to highlight the problems of time & trust. With a fantastic group of co-authors, we present The Drain of Scientific Publishing:
a ๐งต 1/n
Drain: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Strain: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
Oligopoly: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
11.11.2025 11:52 โ ๐ 611 ๐ 436 ๐ฌ 8 ๐ 62
#ICIQJobs
๐ Join ICIQ as a Junior Group Leader!
Weโre seeking talented, innovative scientists ready to push the frontiers of research.
Apply now ๐๐ผ careers.iciq.org/jobs/6745027...
@cerca.cat @bist.eu #SOMM_alliance
13.11.2025 12:15 โ ๐ 2 ๐ 4 ๐ฌ 0 ๐ 0