What is it about?
This addendum concerns the fact that a minor error in the structure input to an NMR prediction algorithm led to a fairly significant error in a paper comparing the performance of various NMR prediction algorithms
Why is it important?
The important issue here is that errors can certainly creep into papers as a result of so many subtle variables. The addendum took two years to issue after the paper but today this would not take long to address at all using modern social sharing approaches.
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Addendum to “Using neural networks for 13C NMR chemical shift prediction—comparison with traditional methods” [J. Magn. Reson. 157 (2002) 242–252], Journal of Magnetic Resonance, November 2004, Elsevier, DOI: 10.1016/j.jmr.2004.07.012.
You can read the full text:
An Addendum to the Original Article Showing that the ACD/Labs NMR Prediction Data were incorrect
This publication by one of the original authors and a number of scientists from ACD/Labs is an addendum to the original article discussing how a subtle change in the structure drawn as input can dramatically impact the quality of NMR prediction and the reported results in terms of performance for a number of NMR prediction engines. This article was released over 2 years after the original article.
A Blog post regarding how social networking tools would be faster than an addenum
A blog post I wrote about how it would have been possible to address the issues in the article in a matter of a couple of hours using systems like Twitter and blogging, maybe even Kudos itself.
The following have contributed to this page