Vol.1 No.2 2008

77/85

Round-table : Reviewing papers in the new style−146 Synthesiology - English edition Vol.1 No.2 (2008) research groups. This time, the authors spilled out the scenarios in their head for us, and although this is good for society, I was a little bit worried that it might disadvantage the authors who were sincere enough to do it.(Mochimaru)Dr. Ono’s concern and Dr. Akamatsu’s comments are very true to an author like me. I do become aware of things when knowledge is formalized within myself by writing it out. When I write, I can qualify “whether the method used here was optimal or not.”How much can a specific case be generalized? This is something that cannot be stated with confidence. I write a bit more only when the reviewer comments, “How about it?” Therefore in my paper, much is written in the section describing the discussion with the reviewers. It was important to get advice from the reviewer. In that sense, although in a sense it is spilling one’s brains out, I feel it is a useful exercise for the researcher to write out their thoughts in an organized manner.(Yumoto)Speaking about scenarios, I think biotechnology is slightly different. Rather than a set scenario, it develops from a certain breakthrough. To find the objective of their research, rather than shooting straight at the center of the target, the biotech researchers try for a breakthrough by at first elaborating the periphery of the target, in the so-called a shotgun style. Since it is an emerging field, such individuals may not admit having a specific scenario in mind when they are asked, “Did you start out with that scenario?”In conventional journals, we wrote as if we aimed at the result from the very beginning, but if we make the future scenario too clear, we can’t apply for patent, and that is very difficult.(Akamatsu)I think that leads to the discussion of originality. The originality of Type 1 Basic Research is “novelty of individual elements,” and it requires a third party to appreciate that originality. From the perspective of Full Research, I think diffusion of science and technology to society is delayed when it is carried out by a third party. That is, there may be problems with the paradigm of evaluating the value of researchers according to the novelty of the individual elements of their research. Until now, the thing that has been most secretly and jealously guarded from others has actually been the process of creating the “thing,” and I think hiding this process weakens the driving force for the product to be used in the society.In other words, knowledge must be used by others. If the synthesis process is disclosed to all, the successor can go on to the next step. I think that is one of the values of knowledge. Therefore, I think the steps of synthesis should be considered as originality.Were the requirements described logically?(Kobayashi)Dr. Akamatsu’s comment just now refer to the specific requirements for a paper. Were the “establishment of research objective,” “presentation of scenario,” “selection of elemental technology,” “combination of elemental technology,” and “evaluation” described logically? Please comment including the practical aspects.(Ono)They depended pretty much on the authors. Some authors described every elemental technologies evenly and explained what they did with them, which is what I expected in the beginning, while others, particularly biotechnology researchers, described the main-and-sub relation where one elemental technology was overwhelmingly important so the next steps could be made only by making a breakthrough in that area. And they described how they added a sub elemental technology later to create the “product.”(Igarashi)Many people looked at the scenario as a backtrack rather than a forecast, and when authors conduct their research, they do not necessarily have the scenario as described in the paper in their head. They ran into dead ends, took detours, and then they picked up the track and marched forward. If we track their routes, it is irregular, but looking at the flow from a larger perspective, I feel the authors went in the direction as described in the scenario.On the appeal point of the journal, the content of each paper is fine, but seen from the viewpoint of the reviewer, I feel the author should set the main theme. Reviewers may have diverging opinions, and I don’t know how to handle this aspect in the future. Perhaps the committee chairman can ultimately dictate what should be.(Mochimaru)Since there are two reviewers for each paper, the authors are confused when the reviewers’ comments are in conflict. (74)−Dr. Noboru Yumoto

※このページを正しく表示するにはFlashPlayer9以上が必要です