Vol.2 No.4 2010

66/68

−296 Synthesiology - English edition Vol.2 No.4 (2010) Letter from the editorSynthesiology Volume 2, Issue 4 has been published. This issue contains diverse research papers just like the previous issues. One of the characteristics of Synthesiology is that the reader can gain some kind of insight upon reading any of the papers. I shall mention three points that I felt strongly.First, reading the papers, I realized I could not immediately pinpoint to what discipline a paper belonged. Although it may be possible to determine the applicable discipline from the institution where the author works, his/her resume, or his/her subject of study, however, that would be somewhat meaningless. That is because the act of combining multiple technological factors for a certain purpose is an act of transcending the framework of a traditional field, and some research cannot be categorized by traditional disciplines. Then, I realized if I could not clearly discern the discipline of a paper, it must be research conducted in true synthesiology style.Second, as I have already written in the “Letter from the Editor” of the previous issue, the papers in Synthesiology are wildly varied compared to the academic journals that are published by disciplines. I mentioned the stakeholders last time, and this time, I see words such as price, uncertainty, cyclic development, real time, and social use. Such terminologies are seldom mentioned in conventional academic journals. In general, analytical researches place importance on discoveries and champion data, whereas researches in Synthesiology seek social utility. This leads to the differences in the points of emphasis and the ways papers are written. The facts that the discipline cannot be pinpointed and that there are added perspectives and issues unseen before are indications that the researchers who submit the papers and the reviewers who review the papers are beginning to understand the objectives of Synthesiology.Finally, although currently a majority of the papers are submitted by the researchers of AIST, I expect more submissions from industry and academia. The Editorial Board is engaging in discussion everyday on how the editorial system should be and what we can do to increase the participation particularly from the people of industry. Also, while this may be extremely ambitious, alongside the practical papers that aim at synthesis of technology, I am expecting a paper that attempts to establish a synthesis methodology by studying the papers of Synthesiology. If our aim is to establish synthesiology as a new science of synthesis, we must make attempts at generalization of its methodology.Editor in charge of PartnershipKoh Naito−

※このページを正しく表示するにはFlashPlayer9以上が必要です