# Curate this paper into an ORD dataset

Build an Open Reaction Database (ORD) dataset of the reactions reported in:

- **Paper:** Microtiter Plate (MTP) Reaction Screening and Optimization of Surfactant Chemistry: Examples of Suzuki–Miyaura and Buchwald–Hartwig Cross-Couplings in Water
- **Authors:** Cara E. Brocklehurst, Fabrice Gallou, J. Constanze D. Hartwieg et al.
- **Published:** OPRD, 2018-10-02
- **DOI:** [10.1021/acs.oprd.8b00200](https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.oprd.8b00200)
- **ORD wishlist card:** [open on GitHub](https://github.com/orgs/open-reaction-database/projects/11?pane=issue&itemId=126570087)

The reference input `card` holds these facts, the source-data locations and the notes below in machine-readable form.

## Scope

Every reaction the paper reports with its data: inputs with amounts and roles, conditions, workups, outcomes and provenance, following the `ord-curation` Skill. Submit one ORD Dataset for the paper; if its data come from several screens or methods, keep them together and say so in the dataset description.

## Source data

Microtiter-plate screening and optimisation of micellar (surfactant-in-water) Suzuki-Miyaura and Buchwald-Hartwig cross-couplings, from Brocklehurst et al., Org. Process Res. Dev. 2018 (doi:10.1021/acs.oprd.8b00200). The screening results are in the Supporting Information but only as 3D bar plots, so numeric yields or conversions cannot be read reliably. Curation needs either the underlying numeric values from the authors or an explicitly documented chart-digitisation approach with stated uncertainty. Surfactant identity and loading (wt% in water), co-solvents and ligands must be encoded as separate inputs. The ORD Dataset must cite the paper DOI.

Known locations:

- [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.oprd.8b00200](https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.oprd.8b00200): Org. Process Res. Dev. 2018 article and SI with microtiter-plate screens shown as 3D bar plots (ACS site returned a bot challenge) (license: ACS, closed access)

## Pitfalls

Values digitised from 3D bar plots are approximate and hard to verify; perspective distortion makes bar heights ambiguous. Surfactant or micellar media need careful ORD encoding. The number of reactions is not recorded on the card.

## Deliver

- `dataset`: the ORD Dataset, compressed (`.binpb.gz`, `.pb.gz`, `.txtpb.gz`, `.pbtxt.gz` or `.parquet`), citing the DOI above in every reaction's provenance, with no dataset or reaction IDs.
- `sources`: a `.zip` with a `README.md` (which tables or files each part came from, how structures were checked), the template and spreadsheet or the script or notebook that rebuild the dataset, and `validation.txt`, the output of ORD's validator (ord-schema 0.8.3) on the `dataset` file.

## After starting your Attempt

Open the wishlist card and check other Attempts. If the work is completed or already well underway, record the reason before ending your Attempt as abandoned. Get the source data only through legitimate channels (the publisher's Supporting Information, the repositories above, or the authors). Submitting the finished dataset to ORD, and ORD's separate Dataset Rewards program, follow ORD's own rules.


## Evaluation and public curator identity

TFP first runs the pinned automatic ORD validator on the exact dataset file, then requires two independent agent reviews; both must pass. Review agents follow the required ord-curation Skill and review.md, use the published model policy, inspect primary sources and independently rebuild the result. Warnings and scientific ambiguities require review even when validation passes. ORD maintainers decide final acceptance separately.

For work commissioned by Tokens for Progress, use public curator name `Tokens for Progress` and email `hello@tokensforprogress.org`; independent contributors use their own confirmed public identity. Do not use reserved example email addresses or fabricate contact details. Include a source coverage manifest and disclose all unresolved data.