Vol.1 No.2 2008

75/85

Round-table : Reviewing papers in the new style−144 Synthesiology - English edition Vol.1 No.2 (2008) The papers submitted here are quite different in style compared to the ones in conventional scientific journals. I am satisfied with the requirements, and the papers I have reviewed were undertaken with the understanding that diverse styles are acceptable. On the other hand, it’s a different story when it comes to whether the readers will accept this diversity. How do we make the readers, who are accustomed to old-style papers, understand the points the authors are trying to make in new-style papers. We must bring around a change in the consciousness and attitudes of readers. We must convince the readers that the new-style papers are also scientific papers, and point out where the originality of the papers lies along the way. To be honest, I think this balance was hard to maintain. Communicating what the authors were trying to say was the hard part.(Kobayashi)We placed the section for discussion with reviewers after the paper. What did you think about that?(Mochimaru)We received several comments from readers that “the discussion with reviewers was interesting,” and I believe it was effective in delivering the message that Synthesiology is created by a collaboration between the reviewers, readers, and authors. I sincerely think it is a good plan because we can clearly show the process of synthesizing a scientific paper to the readers.On the other hand, the reviewers must put in extra effort to read the papers because their comments will be published. If we have two reviewers and one is caught making off-the-mark comments, we must really do our jobs knowing that our names will be published out in open.(Kobayashi)In a peer review, the reviewers are usually anonymous, but we disclose our names, and I do feel that increases the weight of our responsibility.(Ono)We have received several responses from readers stating that “the discussions with reviewers were most interesting,” though I’d prefer if they’d say the papers themselves were interesting. It seems that readers sometimes read “Discussion with Reviewers” before anything else, and if they find it interesting, then they read the main article.(Igarashi)I’ve also heard the comment: “Although the content is difficult and the research is not so-called Type 1 Basic Research, it was very interesting that when a reviewer asked how the author will make changes to parts of a manuscript that were ambiguous, the author responded sincerely in the discussion session.”(Kobayashi)Perhaps the discussions with reviewers may serve as a bridge between authors and readers.Shift in role of reviewers: from reviewer to coauthor(Akamatsu)Talking about first impressions, I do think the discussion with reviewers is important. Maybe I said too much, but I did say a lot. I made plenty of suggestions, almost to the point of being a coauthor. First, I read a manuscript from the perspective of a reader, and think about what the readers should get out from the article. When I feel that “the paper doesn’t say enough,” I comment on everything from the structure of the paper to its logic, which is quite different from reviews done in ordinary journals.The primary objective I have in doing my review is whether “the author can describe a good scenario.” Specifically, what was the issue or reason for starting the research, and what was the focus. If there is clear description of what the issues are and what research has to be done in a certain field, I think people from other fields will be able to see that, “The people in this field are thinking this way when they do their research.”(Kobayashi)I reviewed one paper on optical devices and another on standards in issue no.1, and a paper on materials in issue no.2. Since they were all physics related, the individual elements were clear, and I could readily see the scenario and synthesis of how things were combined to achieve the goal. However, a common problem was since the authors were in the process of product realization, not everything could be written due to nondisclosure agreement with companies, and I found that frustrating at times and I’m sure the authors felt this as well.Another point is the originality as mentioned by Dr. Yumoto. I saw originality because the papers I reviewed were written by people in similar fields to my specialty. I do feel that people of other specialties may find it difficult to judge the originality of synthesis because the component technology may not be original.(72)−Dr. Kazuo Igarashi

※このページを正しく表示するにはFlashPlayer9以上が必要です