Vol.7 No.4 2015
62/64

−258−Synthesiology - English edition Vol.7 No.4 (2015) Letter from the editorWe deliver you Synthesiology Volume 7 Issue 4 that carries five research papers. Please read the “Highlights of the Papers” that is a summary prepared by the Editorial Board at the beginning of the journal. The addition of the highlights started in the previous issue. As I was writing this “Letter,” there was wonderful news. Three Japanese researchers received the Nobel Prize in Physics for the invention and product realization of the blue light emitting diode that enables white light sources. The scientific findings such as the crystallization of gallium nitride were accumulated and became technological elements. These technological elements were integrated with passion, tenacity, and decisiveness of many stakeholders, to finally become a value accepted by society. It is a grand product of synthetic research that is the essence being pursued in Synthesiology.The main characteristic of Synthesiology is that it presents a story of the process whereby a new social value is set as a goal and the technological elements are integrated through various processes. The reviewers play the role of making a decision in place of society under diverse standards for decision-making. They do this to determine whether the structure of the paper comprises a scenario that allows realization of a social value. Their responsibility is extremely heavy. I particularly pay attention to the “Discussion with the Reviewers” at the end of the paper, which the senior editor of the previous issue also mentioned. In principle, the reviewers’ names and the peer review comments are almost never publicized in an academic journal. However, Synthesiology publicizes the reviewers’ identity and the discussion contents that may allow the readers to see the essence of the logic. In reality, the discussions go back and forth several times, and finally, the reviewers, as faithfully as possible and with permission from the authors, summarize the questions, comments, and answers from the authors that are necessary to create the final version of the papers.In the paper for artifactology, the reviewer advised the author to change the perspective in the logical development, and in the paper for the fatigue measurement system that can be used in daily life, the reviewer boldly indicated the points that were unclear and requested corrections. In the papers for methane hydrate development and superconducting film by metal organic deposition, the reviewers requested changes to enable understanding by the general readers, specifically, to add the background of technologies inside and outside of Japan for methane hydrate and to provide categorization of the latest technology for the MOD method. In the paper for four-dimensional radiotherapy system, the reviewer indicated a point of argument that surpassed the authors’ initial proposal, and received the authors’ acknowledgement and understanding for this indication. Reading the “Discussion with Reviewers” that adds transparency to the review process before the actual paper will allow the readers to experience the thrill of this journal. To learn about the process of establishing the “Discussion with Reviewers” and its significance, please refer to the explanations in the “Preface” and “Message from the Editorial Board” (Vol. 1 Issue 1), and the “Roundtable Discussion” (Vol. 5 Issue 3).(Toshimi SHIMIZU, Executive Editor)

元のページ 

page 62

※このページを正しく表示するにはFlashPlayer10.2以上が必要です