Vol.1 No.2 2008

79/85

Round-table : Reviewing papers in the new style−148 Synthesiology - English edition Vol.1 No.2 (2008) (Yumoto)If we receive more submissions, I think that part will soften a bit. If papers are submitted and the authors say they want their articles published, we can say, “Can you describe a bit more?” If the author says, “No, I can’t do that,” then we can say, “We can’t publish it!”(Ono)Since I don’t have that much experience doing joint research with companies, this may be a wild-pitch comment, but there were instances when I was reviewing papers when I felt why they couldn’t talk about things. Aren’t you overstretching the scope of joint research? If you are relinquishing the originality of your research into joint research and are being limited by nondisclosure agreements, isn’t that diminishing yourself as a researcher? I know this may sound unorthodox, but can’t anything be done about it?(Mochimaru)I’ve done lots of joint research, but basically I agree with Dr. Ono. My boss has the same opinion. Basically we are public servants at a national institution, and we do not do research for the company. Even if we do joint research with companies, the findings and methods that we obtain in our activities will be eventually publicized. This is the basic premise.In joint research, though I don’t know what others do, I feel there is no precise agreement with the partner about the final academic reporting.(Igarashi)In practice, a detailed agreement is made when a contracdt is signed. There are conditions to which we must agree, like waiting a year and half due to patent matters. I understand Dr. Ono’s point, but we must make these rules clear, and the researchers must set up the scenario taking the time gap into consideration.Synthesiology as originality and learning(Kobayashi)Now, on the originality of papers, as Dr. Yumoto mentioned earlier, and whether we are heading toward “synthesis as an academic study,” which is the heart of the journal. What was the status after publishing issue No. 1? How was it for the review of issue No.2? And what do you think is the general direction?(Yumoto)In issue No.1, after more than three exchanges of comments and through revisions by Dr. Ono and Dr. Kobayashi, I realized that certain things that seemed not original to someone in that specialty may be significant as a Synthesiology in people of other fields.Since I didn’t have a complete understanding of Synthesiology, I initially expected content similar to that of Type 1- Basic- Research- like papers. I feel there is a long way before I can fully understand what Synthesiology is and whether the papers fulfill the appropriate requirements. I do think I am making progress.(Igarashi)I reviewed two papers. One of the papers was closely related to my specialty, so I read it without considering the synthesiological significance. Now when I look back, I think perhaps I should have considered the synthesiological aspects more. In the other papers, I had strong feeling as a reviewer that the contents should be revised to match the purpose of the journal or to increase its appeal, so I commented frequently, “Why don’t you change the paper to follow this direction.”I do feel that authors and readers as well as reviewers will have more awareness for synthesiological concepts as more issues are published.(Ono)I think it is not very easy to see where originality lies in the papers. Putting it very bluntly, it would be enough if the authors say, “It was fun writing,” and the readers say, “It was fun reading it.” There was another point that comes up in talking the authors. To question “Could this paper have been written by another person if he had the same information?” all the authors stated with confidence, “No, this paper could be written only by myself.” Perhaps that is the author’s originality at the root level. Something that can be written by this author only, that’s also fun to write and fun to read. Dr. Mochimaru MasaakiDr. Akira Ono (76)−

※このページを正しく表示するにはFlashPlayer9以上が必要です