



Here's some thoughts:





1. I categorize all reaction yields qualitatively.

What does this mean? Generally speaking, I don't really believe in yields other than 0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, or quantitative. I also sometimes break this down as 1.) Doesn't work, 2.) Works a little, 3.) Goes halfsies, 4.) Pretty alright, 5.) The bomb diggity . Now, I might conform to the standards of society and report a 62% yield for a publication or presentation, but for the purposes of a practicing-academic-chemist-grad-student, my breakdown is good enough. I readily acknowledge that this view of looking at yields is generally flawed, but it gets the job done on a day-to-day basis.





2. I don't record yields on reactions less than 10 mg.

This isn't entirely true. If I've rigorously run a reaction, and then repeated it, I'll believe a yield on 10 mg scale. But generally speaking, there are too many ways for the yield to go wrong: trace solvent, water, silica, or dust? add 10-20%. Did any manipulation of the material? subtract 10-20%. If I do record a yield on this scale, its most likely going to be as defined in section 1, rounded to the nearest 25%.





3. TLCs of reactions in SI

Why doesn't anyone do this? We record our TLCs in our notebooks and report R f in the SI. But in my opinion, the TLC is the most important qualitative and rapid way to assess a reactions "goodness." If your reaction has an 75 % yield, and an R f = 0.40, but an inseparable side product at R f = 0.37, then I hate your reaction (but I'll still use it if I need it). This is useful qualitative data! Far more useful than melting point. Believe it or not, you can optimize reactions on tiny scale by TLC alone. Its not ideal, but it definitely works when material is scarce.





4. Yield ranges on multiple scales

Reported at 95%! Awesome! Except, maybe that was the best yield you got out of 15 experiments, the reaction usually sits around 75% (and once you got a 30%). Maybe you know the reason for variabliliy (great! put it in the discussion), maybe you don't (thats ok too). Do good science: report yield ranges on multiple scales. If its not possible because its the front line of your 72-step linear synthesis, I forgive you. If its a methodology on simple starting materials, no excuses.





5. Yield is not important.

enough and not enough. There is a need in the literature to deemphasize the importance of yield. been said I'm use hyperbole for effect. But honestly, my yield doesn't ever really matter, in total synthesis there are two quantities of material:There is a need in the literature to deemphasize the importance of yield. Its before that emphasizing yield is bad. If it were me, I would do so in favor of honest reporting of pros and cons of reactions, with a discussion of more qualitative aspects: ease of running and purifying, cost of catalysts, etc.



