Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29643460›Full record

ArticleNature chemistry2018

Retraction Note: Catalytic living ring-opening metathesis polymerization.

Amit A Nagarkar, Andreas F M Kilbinger

Abstract readRetraction Notice
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Nature chemistry, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Amit A NagarkarDepartment of Chemistry, University of Fribourg, Chemin du Musée 9, Fribourg, CH-1700, Switzerland.
Andreas F M KilbingerDepartment of Chemistry, University of Fribourg, Chemin du Musée 9, Fribourg, CH-1700, Switzerland. andreas.kilbinger@unifr.ch.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We the authors are retracting this Article because of our failure to reproduce the molecular weight dispersities (PDI) shown in Fig. 4 using the chain-transfer agent described in the paper (CTA1). While the degenerate chain-transfer mechanism described in Fig. 3 is correct, the best molecular weight dispersities that could be reproduced with the chain-transfer agent shown in the Article are much larger (PDI > 2.0) than reported.We have since studied the kinetics of CTA1 in comparison with several other chain-transfer agents we are currently investigating and we now understand that the reactivity of CTA1 towards propagating ruthenium alkylidene complexes is very low. Very long monomer addition times would therefore have been necessary to gain control over the molecular weight distribution. Such long addition times would exceed the lifetime of the Grubbs catalyst in solution. Faster addition of the monomer has since repeatedly been shown to broaden the molecular weight dispersity.Additionally, the best chain-transfer agents we are currently investigating are orders of magnitude more reactive than CTA1 but give broader molecular weight dispersities than reported in Fig. 4. Molecular weight and dispersity control as shown in Fig. 4 is therefore an inappropriate claim for CTA1.The authors deeply regret these errors and apologize to the community.

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.