Vol.1 No.2 2008

80/85

Round-table : Reviewing papers in the new style−149 Synthesiology - English edition Vol.1 No.2 (2008) What else do you need? Sorry for being so simple.Perhaps that’s too wild statement. Then, what’s the difference between the papers in the new style and the review papers? Several authors mentioned the review papers aren’t expansive enough to write about what was described here in this journal. “If I was writing , I wouldn’t put it this way.” Also, major companies publish “technical reports” periodically, but these “technical reports” talk about the features of new products in words of science and technology, but they’re nothing more. Normally they don’t offer the thinking behind the product, failures, or alternatives. Since those are the source of power of a company, they can’t disclose them. Synthesiology spills that part into open.There’s concern that by spilling it out, won’t the researchers lose the source of their power, but I think a community where people can spill out their guts is a good community. When science began to bloom in the 17th century and academic societies were formed, it started with sharing Type 1 Basic Research results among all members of the society rather than keeping it as personal secret. Instead of thinking that the researcher lost something by disclosing their know-how and scenario, researchers were given the honor of exercising influence over society. They praise the researcher’s originality. If we can create such a community I think science and technology will take a bigger step forward.Scientists and researchers in companies should not be limited totally within the framework of the company, and I believe they do desire to contribute to the progress of science and technology. I think it may not be very easy for company researchers to write for Synthesiology, but I do hope that they will eventually overcome such limitations. (Mochimaru)The basic purpose of a Synthesiology paper is to explain the “learning” process such as how the researcher synthesized the story or why they made certain choices. I had difficulty in doing that, but I think I was able to produce a paper that smelled of the author. I think this should be continued with conscious effort. As we archive synthesiological methods, it is very important to describe how the choices were made and how things were synthesized.I have read other people’s papers as well. Although they were not presented at an abstract level, they are original, and I think they are fairly successful for the start of a new journal.(Akamatsu)In history, the originality of Type 1 Basic Research was to make a major discovery or an invention, and by publishing them as papers, the patron (or employer) thought, “I think this researcher will find more interesting things.”On the other hand, in seeking originality in building a pathway for research so the result will be useful in society, it is necessary to both show that the author can synthesize things in these ways and is capable of making his/her research result useful in those ways. In Synthesiology, there are descriptions of awareness and selection of issues, and I think originality lies in such awareness and selection.I share Dr. Mochimaru’s opinion on synthesiological methods, and I think it will take more time to become abstracted and generalized. But I also think that if it is unattended, it will be a mere pile of knowledge, so we must make an effort to shape them into science.(Kobayashi)Although accumulating the knowledge of Synthesiology, creating archives, and then analyzing and abstracting them might be the work of an editorial board or AIST, I do believe it is the work of synthesiologists, and I wish we can do it for them. In that sense, I think we have made our first steps towards this goal. In the future, I hope we will have many submissions from industry and overseas as well as within AIST, and people will gradually understand our way of thinking. Thank you very much for today.Participants of round table talk: Motoyuki Akamatsu, Kazuo Igarashi, Akira Ono, Naoto Kobayashi, Masaaki Mochimaru, Noboru Yumoto.(February 22, 2008)(77)−

※このページを正しく表示するにはFlashPlayer9以上が必要です