Most journals include guidance on nomenclature, and commonly recommend systematic naming based on Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) and IUPAC nomenclature. But the use of general descriptors such as 'polypeptide 14a' is common practice, culturally embedded for organic chemists and important for clarity and readability of the manuscript. Unfortunately, 'trivial' compound naming is also widely accepted for naming across supporting files, and several journals actively discourage the use of computer-generated multi-line or systematic compound names. While the intention is to preserve clarity and uniformity across the associated files, this practice concurrently discourages the use of InChI 50 and SMILES 51 identifiers. A lack of unambiguous structure identifiers makes it difficult (or impossible) to extract the associated spectroscopic data or properties for reuse through computational means. Overall, the lack of machine-readable compound names across all journals suggest that the researchers and publisher communities do not currently prioritise data sharing requirements for machine discoverability and reusability. We encourage new policies to incorporate compound identifiers (e.g., SMILES, InChIs and InChIKeys) alongside trivial names so that both humans and machines can read the data.