Vol.1 No.2 2008

78/85

Round-table : Reviewing papers in the new style−147 Synthesiology - English edition Vol.1 No.2 (2008) “What should I do?” I think it will be good to have a principal reviewer who will make the final decision while listening to the comments of other reviewers.Normally, in submitting papers to a journal, the author thinks, “A reviewer is someone with the power of life and death over my research paper.” Therefore, the common practice is to succumb to whatever the reviewer says. The author feels that his/her prose becomes a thesis only if he/she agrees with whatever the reviewer says. This must be changed gradually.(Kobayashi)Currently, the reviewers and the authors are acquainted with each other and can discuss things between them, but in the future, we will be receiving submissions from outside AIST and we must review papers of people we do not know. Also when we ask outside people to do the review, we need to have some sort of ground rules. As Dr. Mochimaru suggests, perhaps it is better to have a principal reviewer who can integrate the comments of the reviewers.(Akamatsu)In the requirements, I think the most difficult point is to determine “what is the result?” When we hear “result,” we tend to write up the result as in Type 1 Basic Research, but it is doubtful whether such a result is the type of result required by Synthesiology. We must consider this. Although we still do not clearly, perhaps they must express their results in terms of Synthesiology.(Mochimaru)There is the matter of “significance of a scientific journal,” and it is accumulating Synthesiology through the vehicle of journal. Dr. Akamatsu wrote, “Each paper is an archive of case study of Synthesiology, and Synthesiology is created from that archive.” However, from the standpoint of the editor of the journal, it does not happen automatically, and we must make an active effort.(Ono)Synthesiological methods are actually present, but I feel we are still far from generalization of the methods. I want to focus on the level of “product” that goes out into society and how the “product” is useful to people.(Akamatsu)I think it is not easy to draw the line clearly between Type 1 and Type 2 research. One of the important points is to find value for people who progress from Type 1 to Type 2 Basic Research. We must build a path to encourage people engaging in Type 1 to move on to Type 2 Basic Research.I think we should present how one can move from Type 1 to Type 2 Basic Research by writing papers in Synthesiology.(Ono)Perhaps that’s what is expected by us. I agree with this totally. I hope the results of Type 2 can be clearly presented, even if they are minor(Akamatsu)When we ask, “Please write upon the result of your Type 2 Basic Research,” will the author be able to describe it? As mentioned earlier, it is matter of “what is a result?” The result of Type 1 Basic Research is a discovery or invention with great impact. If a discovery has great impact, the underlying knowledge must be useful to other researchers.When the result of Type 2 Basic Research is explained in the form of a specific product, it may be at the point a product exerts influence on people in society. But if we consider the problem from the perspective as to whether it can have a great impact on other people doing Type 2 Basic Research, there may be some doubt. Even if it is extra work for the the authors, we should ask, “What are your result in terms of Synthesiology?”.(Mochimaru)I think that the journal should ask the authors, and authors and reviewers to engage in a discussion with an open-ended question. We do have a place for an open review, so we can take a moment to think over abstract concepts.Relationship of papers and companies(Kobayashi)Next, let’s move to the subject of the relationship with companies when writing the paper. The authors mentioned that there were many things that couldn’t be included in their papers due to the patents and know-how nondisclosure agreements. Regarding how this should be dealt with in the future, we can’t say much. When the author says, “I can’t write about it,” I don’t know what to do as a reviewer. This problem also arises in hearing and evaluation, and when a researcher says, “I can’t talk about it,” then we’ll have to respond, “Well, then we can’t evaluate it.”(Igarashi)Companies are very sensitive about the disclosure of know-how. I think that this will be a frequent source of questions.(75)−Dr. Naoto Kobayashi

※このページを正しく表示するにはFlashPlayer9以上が必要です