Vol.1 No.2 2008

76/85

Round-table : Reviewing papers in the new style−145 Synthesiology - English edition Vol.1 No.2 (2008) The reviewers of conventional journals decide whether the knowledge presented in an article is truly innovative from the standpoint of their respective disciplines. However, in Synthesiology we look at how knowledge can be used, and I felt in this context the role of the reviewers is quite different.Next, do you think the points that the authors wanted to appeal to in their papers were presented appropriately? As readers, were they useful or interesting and what do you expect in the future?Useful papers(Igarashi)I think there are three points that make the readers feel that a “paper was useful.” One is the reader can see a useful scenario as required by the journal. Second, the description is useful in terms of technological content because points that were not written up in Type 1 Basic Research were presented. And third, it is useful to show that AIST is engaging in the new movement.I reviewed two papers, and I thought the scenarios were developed in a style which would be useful to readers.(Mochimaru)I really had no idea how Synthesiology was advertised. Suddenly, several partners in joint research said they wanted to read it, so I gave them copies of the first issue. I think they learned somewhere that “AIST put out a new journal.” People commented “I read your paper” or “it’s pretty interesting.” They were not eyeglass people.As Dr. Akamatsu said, the reviewers are like representative of readers who give advice on how to communicate the message of the paper to a wide-range of people. Although I don’t necessarily mean that a paper has to be popular among readers, I think whether the intent of an author is communicated effectively must be checked at some point. As a proposal, we can set up a “designated reader,” who doesn’t necessarily have to be fixed, and get comments from that person. It is necessary to check whether the intent of the paper is being effectively communicated from time to time.(Akamatsu)The “scenario,” as mentioned by Dr. Igarashi, is a major element that allows people of other fields to understand papers content more deeply. Another point is whether it is useful to researchers in the field. I expect that when knowledge, which researchers of Type 2 Basic Research maintain as implicit knowledge or things that they figure out among themselves and believe are important in conducting their research, are organized in a thesis form to discuss “why this was done,” knowledge presented in such a style may eventually become a part of formal knowledge. By engaging in discussions relating to these issues, researchers may come to realize flaws in their logic. People in the same field can understand the thinking process of the authors involved or how the target was set in progressing to the next step.We heard only positive comments from the authors, but I think there should be more “awareness” about problems in their own research, such as this was no good or this was not good enough when writing up their research in a paper.(Ono)I think authors are aware that. Type 1 Basic Research can be written up as a 100% complete story, but they cannot present a 100% complete paper in this journal for Type 2 Basic Research. The story here is “my first target was this, but we’ve reached only this level,” and such an incomplete paper will not be accepted by the existing journals. I do feel that some authors have come to accept the fact that a paper could be incomplete, while others were unable to write a paper on their results because they could not accept the concept of writing a paper in an incomplete manner.(Kobayashi)I did get a similar impression. I said to a certain researcher, “Don’t you think you can write a scenario about how your research can help lead to a sustainable society?” but the person responded that can’t be written so he’ll write only up to a certain point. A scenario is “a chain of hypothesis,” as President Yoshikawa said, but I think there’s a nature hesitation on the part of a researcher in how much hypothesizing one can do. The readers, on the other hand, want the authors to present a birds-eye view for the 21st century, so I hope the authors will go ahead and do it.(Ono)I think such scenarios are discussed hotly within a research group. A research group can’t function without discussion of such scenarios. But the results of such discussions remain within the group and don’t make it outside. I think this journal is trying to bring such discussions into broad daylight. The reason they never came out before was partly because there was no path for them to do so, but the main reason is there was fear the results may be stolen when disclosed. Such scenarios are an asset of researchers and (73)−Dr. Motoyuki Akamatsu

※このページを正しく表示するにはFlashPlayer9以上が必要です