PEPS固体地球科学セクション編集委員の三ケ田 均（みかだ ひとし）です．
今回は，PEPSだけでなく海外の雑誌からの査読の経験を通じて得られた，日本人の英語論文草稿に対する印象および査読システムの現状についてお伝えしたいと思います。
最近の日本人の英語は，昔に比べ，随分読み易くなりました。今から20年ほど昔のことですが，とある海外の雑誌に投稿された日本人の論文査読を引き受けた際のことを思い出します。論文の内容というより，英語の修正を数回繰り返して採択に至るまで，長い時でおよそ２年をかけたことがありました。当時は若かったこともあり，著名な雑誌に日本人の論文をなんとか掲載まで面倒みようと意気に感じ，結構な時間をかけ修正を施しました。残念ながら査読者に対する謝辞を残していただけたことは少なく，査読者としてどこまで英語を修正すべきなのか考えてしまったことを思い出します。その際の英語に比べると，外部業者による修正が一般化したためでしょうか，何を言いたいのか分からない，という論文は少なくなりました。但し，プレゼンテーションに耳を傾けると，それほど昔より日本人の英語が良くなった印象は受けません。英語力が上昇したためというより，外部業者に修正を依頼する投稿者が増加したことを意味しているのかもしれません。
僕の研究室では，自分と助教の武川順一先生の二人が教員として勤務していますが，実は二人とも外部業者に修正や翻訳などの作業をお願いしたことは今まで一度もありません。研究室として決して数は多くありませんが，研究室の教員および学生の論文草稿の修正は，全て僕一人で行っています。研究費は1人でも多くの学生の海外学会派遣に充てたいという意図に加え，研究室全員に論文の文章は自分の言葉を使うように指導しているためでもあります。勿論，一回目の査読結果には「Poor English」と常に書かれるだけでなく，２〜３割という結構な頻度でリジェクトになります。それでも，やはり文章をどのように組み合わせ，査読者に科学的な意味合いを，自分の力で何とか伝えようと努力することは研究者の義務だと信じており，今後も業者を使うつもりはありません。少し荷が重いだろうと思うこともありますが，このような経験を通して，学生，助教の先生ともに，たとえ英語でも，自分で文章を組み立て，相手に自分の思いを伝えることの重要性を知ってもらいたいと考えています。
武川先生と僕に対する海外雑誌の査読依頼は，年間に結構な数に上ります。武川先生には，現在の査読システムを維持するため，よほどのことがない限り断らないこと，必ず丁寧に査読し良い点を汲み取ること，という二つの重要な点を伝えています。また，投稿者を混乱させる原因となる後出しジャンケン（同じ文章に対し，最初の査読でコメントしなかったことを２回目以降の査読で記載すること）をしないことも併せて伝えています。査読する側が，相応の気遣いのもとにその任を果たしていることを，是非この文章をご覧の読者にはお伝えしたいと思います。但し，やはり何を伝えたいか分からない，あるいは内容に問題のある草稿では，どうしてもリジェクトにせざるを得ない場合がありますが，可能な限りどこをどう直すべきかを伝えるよう配慮していることは言うまでもありません。自分の場合，年々単調増加するルーティン業務の合間を縫って行うこの査読には，やはり合計すると一編当たり平均で丸三日間ほどの労力を費やしています。
最近気づいたことですが，英語を母国語としない東アジアやヨーロッパの国々の著者は，リジェクトの後，２ヶ月程度で修正論文を再投稿することが多いようです。同じ雑誌であれば，例えリジェクトされても，同じ査読者に査読依頼がかかることが多く，結局何度リジェクトされても必ず掲載に至る粘り強さを見せるのがこの非英語圏の人たちです。ただし，リジェクトの度に，どこを修正すれば良いかがわかるので，最終的に何年かを費やして掲載に至ることも多いと思います。実際，自分の抱える査読の半数は，この再査読論文です。この非英語圏の著者の粘り強さは，是非日本の投稿者に見習って欲しいと思います。
現在の査読システムの維持が難しいと言われる理由の一つに，査読者の確保の難しさが挙げられています。実際に，僕のPEPSの編集委員としての経験では，必要な査読者の３倍の人数の方に打診をしなければなりません。この作業では，投稿システムから自動送信される例の「査読を希望しますか？」という内容の多少失礼なメールの前に，査読をお願いするかもしれない方に個人的に電子メールを差し上げ，査読受諾の可否をお尋ねしています。それでも，多くの方が「忙しい」ことを理由にお断りになる現状には，少々残念な気持ちを抱いています。僕の研究室の武川先生も，論文数の増加に伴い査読依頼数が急増し，今年は彼だけで10編前後の論文査読を行うでしょう。彼の査読数が，いずれ僕の抱える毎年の査読論文数に追いつくのも時間の問題でしょうし，またそれを願っています。査読依頼が入るのは，それだけ科学コミュニティからの信頼を得ることができている証でもあり，査読依頼を受けることは，実はそれだけ業界から認められたと考えるべきではないでしょうか。忙しいのは誰しも同じです。忙しさを理由に査読を断るのではなく，査読者が科学コミュニティを支えているという互助の精神を，再度思い出していただきたいと思います。PEPSのみならず，他の国際英文誌の論文についても，例え少ない休日を返上することになるとしても，少なくともご自身の投稿される論文数程度は，迷わず査読をお引き受けくださるようお願いしたいと思います。査読は責任を伴う大変な作業になりますが，この現在の査読システムの保持および業界の発展に一人でも多くの方のご理解およびご協力をいただければ幸です。
-----(English version)-----
English of Japanese authors viewed from a reviewer and a proposal from an editor
Professor Hitoshi Mikada, Graduate School of Engineering, Kyoto University
The English quality of paper manuscripts prepared by Japanese authors has become much better compared with those in the past. I remember about 20 years ago, when I was asked to be a peer reviewer of a manuscript prepared by Japanese authors submitted to a well-known international journal. Approximately 2 years were taken to get the manuscript published after several times of the judgment to suggest the authors a major revision. In the review of the manuscript, I repeatedly asked for English corrections rather than the scientific contents. I was young at that moment, and felt a little patriotic to give the Japanese authors a chance to have their paper published. Finally, they did not state any acknowledgement to the reviewers and I started thinking what extent reviewers should cover to in the review. These days, I feel the English quality of manuscripts of Japanese authors has been greatly improved. Since there seems no difference in the oral presentations of Japanese authors when I listen to compared with those in the past, the raise in the English quality of manuscripts could be brought by translation agencies many Japanese authors started subcontracting the correction of their manuscript to.
In my laboratory, faculty members, Prof. Junichi Takekawa and myself, have never used translation agencies in the past. It is true that the number of published papers is not so many and I try to correct all manuscripts prepared by laboratory members, i.e., faculty members and students. Since I would like to spend the majority of our budget to send our students to oversea academic society meetings rather than to subcontract the correction of English manuscripts to translation agencies. Of course, any first reviews to our manuscripts say "Poor English," and the probability of manuscript rejections could be 20-30%. Probably the policy of no subcontract to translation agencies would be kept since I believe that it is authors' responsibility to make an effort to combine sentences in order to bring scientific implication to peer reviewers and readers using the authors’ words. It may be a burden for students to prepare their manuscript in English, but I would like them to know the importance of constructing an English manuscript from a sentence through paragraphs through such experiences.
The number of requests to peer-review manuscripts comes to my laboratory every year could be double-digits. The faculty members in the laboratory discuss the present peer view system should be maintained, any review should be completed carefully to pick up the advantages in the manuscripts under review. When the review becomes plural times to a single manuscript, we think it is necessary not to give any new additional comments to the same sentence that has been left uncommented in the reviews of previous time(s). I'd like to tell any researchers to submit their manuscript that the reviewers are conducting their duties under considerable and suitable attention. However, it may happen to judge the rejection when we could not read what the authors want to bring through their manuscript or when there could have some scientifically controversial issues in the manuscript. Even in the case of rejection, editors and reviewers would try to bring back any key issues that may help improving the quality of the manuscript. In my case, the total time spent to review a manuscript could become about 3 days in average after summing up fragmented times buried in routine work that increases monotonically year by year these days.
I noticed quite recently that the author in East Asia and non-English native European countries often try to submit modified manuscript in about a couple of months after the rejection of the previous manuscript. They are persevering to repeat the submission after plural times of rejections until their papers have been accepted. When they submit the modified one to the same journal theirs were rejected, the same peer reviewers tend to be picked up to review the modified. As described in the above, even at the rejection, they acquire suggestions to modify their manuscripts so that further submissions could become possible. The whole procedure may cost years for both the authors and the reviewers, but I would like to suggest Japanese researchers to become persevering as these non-English native authors not to be deflated by the rejection but to be positive in the future submission by all means.
Recently, people are talking about the difficulty to maintain the current peer-review system to publish scientific papers due to various causes. One of the causes is the difficulty to find reviewers in the circumstances of submitted papers that are almost monotonically increasing in numbers. Actually as an editor of PEPS, I have to ask a triple number of people to the necessary number of possible reviewers, i.e., about two third of people we nominate tends to refuse to become a peer-reviewer. Before a little impolite mail is automatically sent to each reviewer to ask if the recipient wishes to review a paper, I always get the person personally in touch with to ask if he/she could have to time to review a paper. I regret that many nominees refuse to be a reviewer with the reason of busyness. The number of request to become a peer-reviewer comes into Professor Takekawa is now increasing as the number of his publications. He would review around 10 manuscripts this year and I greatly wish that the number of his reviews surpasses mine in near future. The reason you are asked to become a peer-reviewer is nothing but a fact that you won the confidence in the science community. Everyone is busy in the community, and I think that the busyness may not be an appropriate reason to decline the request of peer-review. I would like to ask you to think in the following way when you are requested to review a paper: the science community is supported by the volunteerism of scientists and engineers and the peer-reviewing is nothing more or less than a way to contribute to maintain the volunteerism. I would like to ask you to accept reviewing manuscripts at least as many as you submit yours to PEPS or many other international journals even if you need to to spend some holidays or weekends just to peer-review those manuscripts. Peer-reviewing is really a tough work with a burden of responsibility, but you should remind that the science community is not concrete enough to stand by itself but requires your support and contribution that includes your acceptance to become a peer-reviewer.
 |
| Dr. Hitoshi Mikada, Editor of Solid earth sciences section, Professor, Graduate School of Engineering, Kyoto University |
