Vol.1 No.2 2008

74/85

Round-table−143 Synthesiology - English edition Vol.1 No.2 (2008) Type 1 Basic Research when conducting research along a set scenario. One of the important functions of this journal is to describe that process fully.” I felt this was not presented sufficiently. I think the reviewers must emphasize this point with the authors. Of course, the range of what can be described may be limited due to nondisclosure concerns, but I do feel it is necessary to stress this point.(Ono)I think the reviewers share the standpoints of both authors and readers. Compared to Dr. Yumoto and Dr. Igarashi, I have a rather optimistic impression. The authors seem to have a driving passion to write Type 2 Basic Research papers. They tried to show their passion here, and I felt they attained it. Talking with the authors, some mentioned, “For the first time I was able to write things that I couldn’t in the other journals.” This made me believe that authors will be able to show their vision. I may be too optimistic, but I thought we succeeded in showcasing their insights.I reviewed two papers that did not relate to my own research discipline. In fact, it was my first experience that I read original research papers in disciplines other than my own. In my duty as a reviewer, I more or less forced my way through the manuscripts, but I was surprised that as a reader I could read it more smoothly than I though. I might be so optimistic, but my first impression is that the journal was a success, and I have high hopes for it.(Mochimaru)(Kobayashi)We have asked you to review the papers for Synthesiology, the journal for Type 2 Basic Research featuring papers in a new style, and I believe reviewing the papers for this journal has been quite different compared to reviewing Type 1 Basic Research papers. What are the points that you felt most strongly about in doing the reviews?Impression of reviewing for Synthesiology(Yumoto)These were original papers for which originality was required, and I found it was very difficult to emphasize originality. It must have been much more difficult for the authors themselves, but as a reviewer, it was very difficult devising ways to bring out originality.Another point is, I have heard direclty from authors that there were limitations due to patent and joint research conditions with companies, and many things couldn’t be written up in the paper. Perhaps we should wait for the full story when the authors are formally permitted to write, but I also felt it was useful to read about research in progress. However, it is difficult to determine originality if the details of technology remain undisclosed.(Igarashi)If originality is sought as in Type 1 Basic Research, this journal may be insufficient. The President had said, “There are many things that cannot be written in the journals for Reviewing papers in the new styleSynthesiology Editorial BoardReviewing the Synthesiology papers was exciting but hard task for the reviewers because of the new style unseen in the other scientific journals. A round table talk with the reviewers of Volume 1 No. 1 and 2 issues was held to provide frank comments on diverse issues including their impressions on the new journal, the new role of reviewers, the originality of the papers, and the practicality of the requirements to the authors.Round Table Talk by Reviewers of the New Journal(71)−[Translation from Synthesiology, Vol.1, No.2, p.149-156 (2008)]

※このページを正しく表示するにはFlashPlayer9以上が必要です