Vol.3 No.2 2010

79/86

Report : Knowledge for interdisciplinary consilience−182−Synthesiology - English edition Vol.3 No.2 (2010) Since it is supposed that details are already published as the result of Type 1 Basic Research, they can be listed in References and only the conclusions need to be described.5 Publication of a new academic journal SynthesiologyA new form of original research papers and instructions for authors were set, and then a new academic journal Synthesiology3),4) was launched in 2008. The titles of research papers published in Volume 1, Issue 1 are listed below. • Mass preparation and technological development of an antifreeze protein• Development and standardization of accessible design technologies that address the needs of senior citizens• A challenge to the low-cost production of highly functional optical elements• A strategic approach for comparing different types of health risks• Technologies for the design and retail service of well-fitting eyeglass frames• Improving the reliability of temperature measurements taken with clinical infrared ear thermometersThe keywords such as mass preparation, standardization, low-cost production, assessment strategy, design and retail service technology, and reliability improvement found in the titles were seldom used in conventional academic papers. The typical characteristics of Type 2 Basic Research is represented well.The review of papers of Synthesiology is not a peer review that is done by researchers of the same discipline with the authors, but is a merit review that is done by a researcher of roughly similar field to the author’s one and another from a totally different field. The merit review is done from the viewpoints shown in Table 1.As one of the features of Synthesiology, discussion between the authors and the reviewers appears after the text of paper. The names of reviewers are also disclosed. Since the form of paper for Type 2 Basic Research is not finalized as of now, we decided, in solidifying the form, that it would be useful to publicize the discussions between the authors and the reviewers. We receive many comments from the readers that this discussion is very new and interesting.It has been almost two years since the launch of Synthesiology, and we have noticed several points after publication. First, many authors commented that they were able to write the things that could not be written in conventional academic journals even if the authors had wanted to do so. Researchers seem to hope that the background and reason of research and the scenarios they employed in executing their research are publicized. They also have positive attitudes toward communicating more about that with other researchers.Next, the reviewers commented that the originality of research become manifest in their scenarios most easily. On the other hand, the ways of synthesis and integration of elemental technologies are diverse. It is difficult to settle upon some uniform style at this point, but it is expected that some categorization of scenarios will eventually emerge. The point most reviewers found surprising was that they were not only able to understand the content of an original research paper written by researchers of different disciplines, but were able to give comments to the authors at a certain level of quality. This is a major characteristic of Synthesiology that would have never occurred in current academic journals dealing with Type 1 Basic Research. Thus there is a possibility that the journal would be accepted by a wide-ranging readership.The readers have sent us many comments pointing out the advantages and usefulness in understanding and knowing about researches in fields outside of their own disciplines.In this modern times when many complex issues such as global environments emerge and new industry-government-academia collaborations such as open innovation are suggested, we believe the methodology of synthetic research will play an important role along with Synthesiology that is a medium for its expression and a place of information exchange.6 For further discussion in the symposiumUsefulness in the society is emphasized in the synthetic researches. However, the science was already expected to be useful at the beginning. The philosophy of natural science research in which we currently engage started with Francis Bacon, who stated that the humankind will become happy by studying nature and making discoveries and inventions5). At the same time, the natural science took the route of positivism, and academic journals were established as their method. Then the emphasis was placed on the investigation of factual knowledge. On the other hand, the research community has never worked on the investigation method for usefulness that was expected by Bacon. However, the society expects “major discoveries” and “great inventions” by science and technology. One of the criteria evaluating such values is certainly usefulness, however the evaluation of usefulness is not simple. From the perspective of impact on society, one can evaluate a research result in terms of how much effect it has on the market. But the market dynamics is often moved by factors different from those of science and technology, such as protection of vested interests and industries, trendiness, and price competition. Due to these

※このページを正しく表示するにはFlashPlayer9以上が必要です