Next Article in Journal
2,6-Bis(phenylamino)-4-(iminophenyl)benzoquinone
Previous Article in Journal
4-(4-(((1H-Benzo[d][1,2,3]triazol-1-yl)oxy)methyl)-1H-1,2,3-triazol-1-yl)-7-chloroquinoline
 
 
Short Note
Peer-Review Record

3-Phenyl-4-(prop-2-en-1-yl)-5-[(prop-2-en-1-yl)sulfanyl]-4H-1,2,4-triazole

Molbank 2022, 2022(3), M1405; https://doi.org/10.3390/M1405
by Yurii I. Slyvka 1,*, Evgeny A. Goreshnik 2, Andrii M. Fedko 1 and Marian G. Mys’kiv 1
Reviewer 1:
Molbank 2022, 2022(3), M1405; https://doi.org/10.3390/M1405
Submission received: 31 May 2022 / Revised: 21 June 2022 / Accepted: 3 July 2022 / Published: 7 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Structure Determination)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors present the crystal structure of 3-Phenyl-4-(prop-2-en-1-yl)-5-[(prop-2-en-1-yl)sulfanyl]-4H-1,2,4-triazole (Art) they previously studied as ligand publishing several complexes with Cu(I) with different halogens (JOC 2017, ref 12) and other metal ions (ICA 2019, ref 13).

The structure is original and well described.

The title should be “Crystal structure of … “.

Some comments: 

1)    The language of abstract and introduction is of very poor quality and should be improved.

2)    Even if two previous works were cited, a brief description of the synthesis of Art and of the crystallization root should be included: how were prepared the crystals? From which solvent/mixture of solvents were obtained? 

3)    A basic characterization of the title compound should be included: Melting Point, IR, NMR.

4)    Too many self-citations (8 items, from 12 to 19). The authors should try to limit them to those strictly necessary.

Author Response

We are grateful to Reviewer for the favorable and supportive review. Following the suggestion we improved the title of the paper. We have addressed the comments as mentioned below.  

    The title should be “Crystal structure of … “.

Response: Following the Reviewer suggestion we improved the title of the paper.

“1) The language of abstract and introduction is of very poor quality and should be improved..

 Response: We slightly improved the quality of language.

“2) Even if two previous works were cited, a brief description of the synthesis of Art and of the crystallization root should be included: how were prepared the crystals? From which solvent/mixture of solvents were obtained?”

 Response: We have added to the Materials and Methods Part a brief description of the synthesis and crystallization root for Atr.

“3) A basic characterization of the title compound should be included: Melting Point, IR, NMR.

Response: Basic characterization of the title compound now is added to the Materials and Methods Part.

 “4) Too many self-citations (8 items, from 12 to 19). The authors should try to limit them to those strictly necessary”

Response: We reduced the percentage of items with self-citations. Now there are 6 such items and, at the same time, we increased the number of other citations. 

  All changes in the manuscript are marked in green.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The suggested revisions have been made.

The English still need to be improved, maybe the editorial office can help. 

Back to TopTop