Vol.1 No.3 2009

62/69

Article : Launch of AIST journal Synthesiology (H. Ohsaki et al.)−213 Synthesiology - English edition Vol.1 No.3 (2009) of publication if the results and research processes contain universal statement.[Inaba] I think the uniqueness and value of Synthesiology can be claimed as open opportunity to publish behind-the-scene stories of research, without limiting the topic to results and research processes of application research. In that sense, AIST, which is the largest Japanese research institute for basic research, must have lots of researchers that can provide stories.Can the famous “First Draft of a Report on the EDVAC”[10] written by John von Neumann at the dawn of computers be called paper of Type 2 Basic Research or a paper that described “ought” knowledge. At the time, computer technology was concealed as classified information. Particularly, there were only few papers that described the details of ENIAC, the predecessor of EDVAC[11]. The “First Draft” was more like an academic paper that comprehensively explained the architecture of stored-program computer (the archetype of current computer) from mathematician’s perspective, rather than a technological document describing the state-of-art technology of the time. In fact, it was conceptual, though universal, explanation of basic components of stored-program computer and flow of arithmetic processing. Influenced by this “First Draft” and several papers by von Neumann that followed, stored-program computers were developed around the world after 1948, and diffused globally as standard of computers[12].The example of von Neumann paper is perhaps a special case. However, following lessons can be learned from this example. In academic insight gained by studying, analyzing, and synthesizing the result of Type 2 Basic Research, boundary between ought knowledge (“value”) and factual knowledge (“fact”) is unclear. Indeed, even if the paper is composed only from factual knowledge, subjective statement of the author seeps out between the lines.What then is a paper for ought knowledge? Traditional “scientific” paper is a paper formed of factual knowledge and thus conclusion is drawn from accumulation of facts. The conclusion, on the other hand, can be convinced within particular discipline of knowledge.However, ought knowledge include subjective statements. Aside from apparent mistake, paper with stance of “no ought from an is” demands final judgment by the readers for appropriateness or even truthfulness of the statement.On the other hand, if the stance that ought knowledge and factual knowledge are indivisible[13], the paper of ought knowledge is an opportunity to state conclusion drawn by accumulation of facts within the framework including social norms or values. There is possibility that truthfulness or appropriateness may become difficult to judge.Regardless of the stance one takes in paper that discusses ought knowledge and subjective statement, the situation shunned by most academic journals is accepted, and ought knowledge papers now has opportunity for publication. Synthesiology states that it will accept this difficult situation as a journal to achieve its initial objectives. I think this stance makes this journal unique.The problem of review process was indicated concerning the point that there were papers from multiple research fields. [Sato] Submitted papers include those of diverse products and fields. Therefore, how do you maintain evenness of review quality, and how do you maintain fairness of review processes and results?Discussion between reviewers and authors are published at end of each paper, to keep the review process transparent. Whether the quality of review is maintained or not can be checked by reading the discussion. Errors that can be verified objectively can be corrected in the review process, while the following points can be communicated: (1) how reviewers see truthfulness or appropriateness of statements (conclusions) that include subjective elements, and (2) that the final judgment is left to the readers.For a new journal to ask submission of papers under its unique objective may seem arrogant from outside. However, if there are more people outside AIST who agree with the objective and attempt to increase the significance of the journal, the journal as well as the underlying philosophy of AIST will be justified.[Minami] For that purpose, is raising awareness of the journal a priority, or is it to have people understand the objective of new journal launch?There is no conclusion in the discussion of “chicken or egg.” Rather than discussing the journal, perhaps the priority should be how to establish the unique concept of AIST where research is categorized into Type 1 Basic Research, Type 2 Basic Research, and Product Realization Research rather than basic research, application, research, and design development.7 SummaryIn the discussion at the CS Seminar, we had an opportunity to review the ideological objective of the journals, as exemplified by the launch of Synthesiology. Also, several issues that must be considered in the present and reviewed in the future were raised. They are not easy at all to solve. However, how these issues are resolved will be the key to success of new journal Synthesiology.(59)−

※このページを正しく表示するにはFlashPlayer9以上が必要です