J. Neurogenetics, 26(1): 15–21
Copyright © 2012 Informa Healthcare USA, Inc.
ISSN: 0167-7063 print/1563-5260 online
DOI: 10.3109/01677063.2011.642036

A Sense of Presentation: Hotta’s Maxims
Kuniyoshi L. Sakai

J Neurogenet Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University of Tokyo on 04/06/12
For personal use only.

Department of Basic Science, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

I had my first experience of scientific research in Yoshiki
Hotta’s lab while I was an undergraduate and graduate student at the Department of Physics. From Hotta, I learned not
only how to perform research, but how to present a result
most effectively. Based on his philosophy about scientificpresentation, I have introduced Hotta’s maxims in a chapter(§5, “A Sense of Presentation—Skill in Communication”)
of my popular book on science(1) written in Japanese, which
is translated here for the first time. The original Japanesesources cited in that book will not be referenced here except
for Web sites. For those who can read Japanese, I would
recommend Hotta’s book(2) published recently, which is fullof his wit and charm. I hope that my contribution based on
Hotta’s maxims is helpful for young students, as well as forsenior or professional researchers who are in the position ofraising young and ambitious scientists.(3)PHILOSOPHY FOR RESEARCHPRESENTATION
No scientific research is complete by itself. Research ismaterialized only by publishing its results. Publication orpresentation of research is therefore the most challenging
aspect of scientific activities.
Academic journals abound in the world, and there
are as many scientific papers as stars in the sky. Writinga paper by oneself, however, is a demanding job. Because
we are responsible for representing our work to the scientific community, we have to have confidence that we areundoubtedly world-class specialists in the field coveredby our paper. We thus need to write a paper with highconcentration and attention comparable to that which wehave devoted to our research itself.
You may consider presenting your research as fundamentally the same as writing a novel or giving a theatricalperformance. A paper, even if it is written by multiple
authors, clearly reflects the process of their thought. In an
oral presentation, a speaker plays the roles of both a leading actor and a director, so to speak. This does not mean,

however, that we can write our paper or give our presentation in any way we like. On the contrary, we should notforget that our paper or presentation is intended to communicate precisely what we want to represent (or resultsof our research, in our presentation) to readers.
Whereas I emphasize that research itself is “selforiented,” the philosophy for research presentation shouldbe thoroughly “other-oriented”, i.e., from readers’ or theaudience’s perspective. You can do your research by yourself, but the publication (presentation) of your researchrequires both author (speaker) and readers (audience).
Cultivating your skills in communication to others is thus
fundamental to the philosophy for research presentation.

PUBLISH OR PERISH
Let me first clarify what publication precisely implies
in an academic world. The term manuscript refers to
unpublished materials. In contrast, a preprint refers to a
copy of a manuscript for proofreading before it goes into
publication, and a reprint (also called “offprint”) refers toa republished edition or a separately printed article froma periodical. Manuscripts are strictly distinguished frompublications. Any material that is not published in theform of book or journal article, including a privately published material, is not recognized as a paper published. Of
course, an article appearing on a personal Web site is notrecognized as an “academic paper.” A doctoral dissertation is, however, recognized as an official academic paper
even if unpublished, and it can be cited in an academic
paper since a university or research institute accepts it
officially.
There is an English idiom that goes, “publish or
perish.” This is a harsh maxim that tells us that we have no
choice but to perish if we do not publish our papers. Even
the best idea is not publicly recognized, if it is not actually published as a paper. This is because science is not aworld of self-satisfaction. As Michael Faraday, a British
physicist, has said, “Work. Finish. Publish.”

Received 7 November 2011; accepted 15 November 2011.
Address correspondence to Kuniyoshi L. Sakai, Department of Basic Science, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, The Universityof Tokyo, 3-8-1 Komaba, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153-8902, Japan. E-mail: sakai@mind.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp15

J Neurogenet Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University of Tokyo on 04/06/12
For personal use only.

16

There is always an exception to the rule, however.
Henry Cavendish, another British physicist, who displayed his talent in experimenting in physics, publishedonly a few papers himself. The results of his experiments
remained unknown without being evaluated at all until
his laboratory notes were later published by James Clerk
Maxwell. Many of his results went ahead of the times,
including the measurement of the universal gravity constant and the discovery of the inert noble gas. In memoryof such achievements, the Cavendish Laboratory, which
was named after him, was established as the Departmentof Physics at Cambridge University.
Cavendish was a man of strong character. He was oneof a few scientists, who did not care about public reputation at all and also were able to look at himself with eyesof a strict scientist. I am not sure if this has anything to dowith his extreme misanthropy. There are many episodesof this, such as devoting himself to research without taking a step outside his home or firing his housekeeper justbecause she came across him in his estate.
Except such an extreme case of Cavendish, we are allbound to the “publish or perish” maxim. I remember wellthat Hotta often mentioned this maxim to get my results
published.

PRESENTATION OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
There are three fundamental points for the presentation ofscientific research.
First, it must be accurate. Accuracy takes the highest precedence in the presentation of scientific research.
Obviously it is against the ethics of scientists to distort
the truth deliberately, or to make a wrong statement inadvertently, even when the presentation is addressed to
specialists or the general public. But being accurate goesbeyond the accuracy of what we present, because the accurate information must be correctly perceived by readersor the audience. If any misunderstanding arises, unlessreaders or the audience have a malicious intent, it should
be caused by shortcomings on the part of a speaker, due toa lack of accurate explanation. When we realize this, theaccuracy of our next presentation will certainly improve.
Secondly, it should be accessible. Our presentation needs
to be as accessible as possible. Nothing can be communicated to the audience, unless it can be understood by them. It
is in fact very easy to present technical contents in technicalterms. If the presentation is inaccessible, it should be causedby shortcomings on the part of a speaker for not explaining inan accessible manner. When we realize this, the accessibilityof our next presentation will significantly improve. Accuracy,
however, should not be sacrificed for accessibility; accuracy
has thus higher priority than accessibility.
Thirdly, it should be short. The shorter our presentation is, the better; for we should not have readers or theK. L. Sakai

audience waste their valuable time or cause them unnecessary pain. Nothing is more important than arriving at ourconclusion quickly, just like the “light-speed yose (endgame)” of the shogi player Koji Tanigawa. A short talk has
an advantage of being easier to recall, since it is focused.
Accessibility, however, should not be sacrificed for brevity; accessibility has thus higher priority than brevity.
These three principles mean nothing more than putting ourselves in readers’ or the audience’s shoes, i.e., presenting from others’ perspective. Of course, it is assumed
that a speaker has a precise understanding of what he/she isgoing to talk about. The better we understand the materials
we cover in our presentation, however, the more likely it isthat we take them for granted. This creates a psychologicalblind spot. That is, we are unlikely to realize that “others do
not necessarily take them for granted.” It is very difficult toswitch from the speaker’s to the audience’s perspective.
This psychological blind spot about others’ perspectives has something in common with magic or conjuring
tricks. Once you know the secret, you will be convinced thatevents that actually occur can all be rationally understoodbecause they follow laws of physics. However, you will not
readily realize that “others do not necessarily take them for
granted.” Beginners in magic thus tend to evaluate the quality of a magic trick by the complexity of its mechanism, as
they do not understand how the audience is surprised by amagic trick based on a simple mechanism. No matter how
complicated a phenomenon you see is, it will not make theaudience wonder, if they can feel its artificiality.
Michael Faraday, who was known to give excellent
talks for the general public and children alike, such as“The Chemical History of a Candle” for his Christmas
lectures at the Royal Institution, noted as follows.
“The lecturer should give the audience full reason tobelieve that all his powers have been exerted for theirpleasure and instruction.”(4)That is, exerting all our power for the interest ofothers leads to an excellent research presentation.
DELBRÜCK’S MAXIMS AND HOTTA’SMAXIMS
According to Hotta, Max Delbrück gave the following
two conditions for giving a good talk:
1. Assume complete ignorance on the part of theaudience.
2. Assume infinite intelligence on the part of theaudience.
Delbrück, who always sat in the front row during every seminar, was feared for walking out of the room during a talk if it was uninteresting. A speaker was reported
to have fainted on such an occasion.

Hotta’s Maxims

In addition to Delbrück’s maxims, Hotta’s maxims
given below are also important.
1. Assume complete ignorance on the part of the audience. (This is same as Delbrück’s maxim.)
2. Assume infinite diversity in the audience’s intelligence.
(This is different from Delbrück’s maxim.)
3. Make sure that individuals of the audience can reachlevels one step higher than their own levels of understanding before the talk. (This is new.)J Neurogenet Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University of Tokyo on 04/06/12
For personal use only.

Hotta further explains as follows.
“It is obviously very difficult to meet these conditions
in giving a talk. On second thought, before worrying if any of the audience may have a low level ofintelligence, one should expect that some of the audience are wiser and have greater intelligence than the
speaker himself/herself. One should give a talk thatinspires such individuals to reach a level higher than
the speaker’s. That is precisely the point of giving atalk. True communication will be established, when
the speaker himself/herself reaches new understanding after receiving feedback from such individuals.”
Messages one gets by listening to a talk are called“take-home messages.” We should make an effort to givea meaningful talk, which provides messages that highly
intelligent people are willing to take home.

PRESENTING RESULTS OF RESEARCH
Presentation and publication of the result of scientificresearch by and large take place in the following threestages:1. presentation at academic conferences,
2. paper publication, and3. public release.
A presentation at an academic conference is intended
to show and discuss the latest findings, and it covers apaper that has not yet been finalized (in progress or underreview). In a general session at an academic conference(except a symposium), we should not, in principle, present
a result that has already been published and become publicly known. That is, the first and second stages must not
be reversed. I say “in principle,” because a paper publication unavoidably precedes a conference presentation if apaper is published after the deadline for the registration ofa talk (with a title and abstract) and before the conference
presentation.
Scientific journals often release online versions of papers (electronic files in the HTML or PDF format) on theInternet prior to their printing. There is an agreement that
one must not release the results of his/her research in newspapers, periodicals, or the Internet, until the day on which17

the online version of the paper is released (which is called
the “embargo date”). That is, stages 2 and 3 must not bereversed. This is intended to protect the profit of publishersof journals and, at the same time, to guarantee enough time
for a news reporter to write an accurate article.
Presentations at academic conferences are classified into two types based on how they are made: poster
presentations and oral/platform presentations. A poster
presentation enables us to have discussion with the audience assembled before a poster board on which we attach our materials, exchanging ample information withthem, as we can explain our research in accordancewith the interest and question of each of the audience.
We can repeat a poster presentation each time a newaudience comes, whereas we only get to give an oralpresentation once.
You may think that an oral presentation is less demanding for a speaker in terms of efficiency, but it requires more elaborate preparation, because a speaker has
only one chance to give the presentation. Slides used foran oral presentation need to be prepared in such a manneras to make them easy for the audience to see and as accessible to the audience as possible.

A PAPER IS EVERYTHING
When I was a graduate student, my adviser (Yasushi
Miyashita) said to me, “Useless data remain useless,no matter how much they are accumulated.” “Useless”
data that fail to exhibit an expected effect are called
negative data. Nothing, indeed, follows from negative
data. On the other hand, publishing negative data may
spare other experimenters from repeating the same mistakes. As a matter of fact, a report has been publishedwith the title “Report of the Study Group on the Use of
Knowledge of Failures: For the Positive Use of Unsuccessful Experience.”(5)Repeated experiments carried out over sleeplessnights using the most expensive experimental equipment
and the world fastest computer, however, mean nothing if
they do not yield interesting results. The value of scientificresearch is completely independent from energy devoted
for it. In addition, the most marvelous result yielded will
not be properly communicated to other researchers, if thepaper reporting it is not well written. Ultimately, “a paper is everything.” What follows is a part of the passage
from Michihiro Matsuda’s Close-up Magic describing the“points of performance.”“Thinking from the perspective of the audience means
to have a capability to look at oneself with the objective eyes of a third person. An amateur magician isinterested more in how he/she performs a magic thanin how his/her magic appears to the audience.

18‘People are impressed to see a painting drawn
on the humblest canvas, if it is a beautiful painting.
Nobody, however, even looks at a painting drawn ina luxurious studio by a painter in a velvet smock using the most expensive paints in the world, if it is an
uninteresting painting. It is the painting that people
are interested in seeing.’
This is a saying by Dai Vernon. Magic is the sameas painting.”

J Neurogenet Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University of Tokyo on 04/06/12
For personal use only.

It is the same with research. It is only the paper thatpeople are interested in reading.

APPROPRIATE QUOTATIONA quotation in a paper of a passage from a publicationis regarded as plagiarism, if its source is not clearly
indicated. It is very important to have the correctknowledge about an appropriate quotation. A clear explanation is given by Japan Uni Copyright Center(6) as
follows.
“Before quotations, there must be an author’s passage
or publication, which is the side of quoting text. ‘Quotation’ is one of the exceptional clauses of the copyright law that allows the author to use without permission another’s publication to the minimal extent, only
when it is indispensable (e.g., used as evidence) for
the development of the passage. With such legitimate
quotation, it is allowed neither to alter the content tobe quoted nor to excerpt only its preferred parts todistort the original point. It is also required to indicate
clearly the source including the title and authors of the
publication quoted.”
It is thus illegal to copy the whole article and reproduce it in a book or on a Web site, without the permissionof the author of the article even if the source is clearly
indicated. It should be also remembered that a copyrightdoes not perish even when a publication containing thearticle in question goes out of sale or print; it remains protected for a period (of 50 years under the current law) after
the death of the author.
The “Article 32” of the Copyright Law of Japan,
which specifies “quotation,” indicates as follows.
“It shall be permissible to use quotations from a publication already made public, provided that such use iscompatible with fair practice and does not exceed theextent justified by purposes such as news reporting,criticism, or research.”
According to the Japanese version of Wikipedia (asof 2006), the “fair practice” is summarized as the following five requirements.

K. L. Sakai

1. There must be a necessity to quote a publication, as
well as a necessity for the extent of quotation. It isalso required that the text, in which a quotation is
made, has originality. It does not qualify as quotation simply to copy a whole passage after noting,“There is a passage that follows.”
2. The text and quotation are in “superordinate” and “subordinate” relations, respectively, both qualitatively andquantitatively.
3. A quotation should be clearly distinguishable from thetext.
4. A quoted passage is a part of a published work.
5. The source is clearly indicated (the “Article 48” of the
Copyright Law of Japan).
The last requirement, clear indication of the source,
may be widely known as a part of the minimum requirement. Fewer people, however, may correctly understandthe “necessity” of quotation and the “superordinate/subordinate” relations between the text and quotation. Furthermore, it should be particularly noted that a quotation isinappropriate, if it is not clearly delimited or if it is madefrom an unpublished private article (diary, private correspondence, etc.) without the permission of the authors.
Even if the text and quotation are in superordinate/
subordinate relations quantitatively, we had better assume that there is a certain limit to the length of thequotation. A quotation that is too lengthy tends to beconsidered the same as a mere duplication. Regarding
the maximum length allowed for a normal quotation,
South End Press (Boston, MA) clearly indicates thefollowing criterion in every book it publishes.
“Any properly footnoted quotation of up to 500 sequential words may be used without permission, as
long as the total number of words quoted does notexceed 2,000. For longer quotations or for a greaternumber of total words, please write for permission to
South End Press.”
Thus in English, the criterion for quotation isabout 500 words. One criterion set by Chuko Shinsho(Tokyo, Japan) is that “a quotation exceeding one pageshould be avoided as much as possible.” This pointneeds attention when a quotation is made in a Web
document or handout, as it tends to be given less attention, since the concept of “page” is not so relevantwith such documents. I have received an assignment
paper for my class that copied an entire article fromthe Internet without the indication of its source. I was
horrified, although it was the work of a college student.
Of course, I gave an F to the paper but received no complaint, presumably because the student may have felt
guilty. I only hope that the student will take a lesson
from this and not repeat the same mistakes.

Hotta’s Maxims

J Neurogenet Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University of Tokyo on 04/06/12
For personal use only.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRINTEDPUBLICATIONS AND THE INTERNETThe Internet drastically changed the world of academic
publishing. Now we can read papers in a variety of journals
on our desk without walking around in a large library. We
live in an age where we can learn of a new discovery reported on the other side of the earth in real time by a slightmove of our fingertips and without using our feet.
The obvious advantage of the Internet is rapid distribution of information. It has now gone beyond convenience and become indispensable to search for necessary
information among a huge number of papers and databases that keep growing rapidly. Most scientific journals
have adopted “Online Editorial System” via Internet for
authors and reviewers, and registration for academic conferences has gone online.
In exchange for convenience, however, Internet communication sacrifices reliability in communication. No
one may believe any longer that all information obtained
from the Internet is correct, but to what extent can Internet information be said to be reliable? It is difficult
even for the most reliable Web site to eliminate errors
completely. Official Web sites of publishers, responsibly
and appropriately administered, make the same papers
that appearing in their scientific journals available in theform of electronic files, but we can’t tell whether a personal Web site is reliable. The administrator of the site
may have arbitrarily “edited” papers and uploaded themon his/her site, and such editing can change them for the
better or the worse.
In addition, the judgment of reliability depends not
only on the party transmitting relevant information but
also on the ability and knowledge of the party receiving
it. This is because the reliability of information obtained
depends greatly on how well a site viewer can sift information. We have to be wise enough to begin with in order
to become wiser through the Internet.
Then, in what ways does information on the Internet
differ greatly from information in printed publications
such as books and periodicals? The greatest difference
lies in the presence or absence of anonymity, review, andstorage. A scientific paper contains the authors’ names, isreviewed by the referees and editors, and is stored as it isfor a long period of time. As the names of the authors andpublisher (journal) are indicated on publications, their reliability is guaranteed by the judgment and responsibilityof the authors and publisher. The publication of a book or
paper full of errors will put in question the judgment not
only of its authors but also its publisher. A paper is also
examined for the reliability of its contents by being readby multiple persons other than the authors, including reviewers, editors, and proofreaders. All versions of a paper
including its later revisions are preserved for record. Furthermore, as publications in printed media are preserved

19

in libraries for a certain period of time, everyone can readthem to confirm their contents anytime afterwards.
In contrast, with an article released on the Internet by
an individual, it is often difficult to specify the name of its
author. In addition, it is not subject to review, and it may bechanged or deleted before we know. Consequently, even if
we publish a scientific discovery on our personal website,
it is not recognized as a scientific achievement. The factthat individuals can freely express themselves on the Internet, which is one of its advantages, conversely puts thereliability of articles on the Internet into the peculiar stateof being dependent on individuals’ judgment. However
pertinent an article may appear, it is often unclear who is
responsible for the article and to what extent the article
is reliable, as its author remains anonymous. In addition,on the Internet, one cannot only readily release information but also easily revise or delete it. It is impossible torequire that all information on the Internet, which changes
every instant, be recorded on disks.
We can find, every day, someone who tries to makehis/her opinion appear as if it were right without revealing who he/she is (and thereby avoiding proper academic
discussion) by using “Internet forums” or “reviews” atbookstore sites, which can catch the eyes of many people.
What is more, it is possible to pretend one is an “expert”
in the relevant area by making an anonymous post. It goesagainst the ideal of publishing culture and natural scienceto accentuate differences in opinions and positions in science sensationally by using the Internet. The importanceof the traditional “publication” of scientific papers has
arguably become clearer by the very emergence of theInternet.

PASSIVITY TO ACQUIRE INFORMATION,
AND DEVALUATION OF INFORMATION
Although searching a Web site by key words may seem tobe an active behavior, but it is in reality a fundamentally
passive one. Checking links in the list of search results is
not so different from zapping TV channels to kill time.
Unless we stop searching, we will be overwhelmed by theenormous amount of information on the Internet. Whether
or not we hit the right site we are searching simply depends on the performance of a search engine, not on our
wisdom.
Such passivity to acquire information brings a clear
disadvantage to education, such that students will stop
thinking. When a question arises, students would start
searching on the Internet before they think about it. If theysuccessfully hit a site that contains the necessary information, they may feel “lucky”; but by then they have alreadygiven up thinking. If they further keep repeating such passivebrowsing, they may acquire a large amount of superficial
knowledge; but they will lose the habit of thinking. The onlyJ Neurogenet Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University of Tokyo on 04/06/12
For personal use only.

20

way to securely establishing knowledge is to complement
imperfect information by pondering over their questions.
An excessive absorption of passive knowledge mightcause them to lose their scientific mind.
We can easily obtain various pieces of knowledge
through the Internet, to be sure. The easier it is to obtain
information, however, the less its value will be. For
instance, suppose someone has made the same contents
as the textbook for some correspondence course freely
available on the Internet. Then, no one will pay for thecorrespondence course any longer; this is a clear violationof copyright. The value of information arises precisely
because it contains knowledge that is not available elsewhere. What if more and more sites started to offer freecontents appropriate to beginners for a variety of courses
and areas of study offered at school? Even lab classes andseminars could be realized virtually on the Internet to acertain extent, if several cases of expected results wereprepared. Then, textbooks would no longer sell and there
would perhaps be no need to pay expensive tuition toattend lectures and seminars at the university.
The process of taking time to understand knowledge,
discuss it with instructors and friends, or doubt it, is much
more important than knowledge itself. The harder it is toobtain knowledge, the more room there will be to cherish,
develop, and enhance its value. No matter how much wesearch for superficial knowledge, we may not necessarily
achieve deep understanding. It would be regrettable that
the Internet, which should be a treasure of knowledge,
had devalued knowledge because of its convenience. The
Internet is neither a magic wand nor Doraemon’s “fourdimensional pocket.” If anything, the Internet is only apopularized “melting pot of information.”
From time to time, let’s free ourselves from the Internet and take the time to read original papers and books
carefully. In order to absorb the latest knowledge in science, we need sufficient time to digest it. We had better try
to understand rather than know something.

CHECKPOINT CALLED “PEER REVIEW”
Even if papers go online and the value of information
undergoes rapid changes owing to the Internet, the extremely human system for reviewing papers is expected tocontinue in the future. The examination and evaluation ofa paper or application for a research grant by researchers
in the same field are called “peer review” (i.e., reviewing
by colleagues). As this system reflects the fundamental
idea for evaluating the work of a researcher, let us look alittle more closely at its procedures.
A couple of reviewers (who review a paper) whosenames remain anonymous to the authors (whose paper isbeing reviewed) are appointed by the editor or editorial
review board. Thanks to anonymity, a reviewer can highly

K. L. Sakai

praise or severely criticize a paper without any future
troubles. If a reviewer were not anonymous, bribery could
soon be rampant and an evaluation could be bought bymoney. On the other hand, there remains a risk that a malicious review can be given by exploiting anonymity.
With scientific journals, the names of authors seldom
remain anonymous to a reviewer. In natural sciences, results newer than those covered by a paper often have been
mentioned at an academic conference at the time when
the paper is reviewed, and papers by those belonging toan authors’ research group are most frequently cited. A
review will soon identify authors even if their names are
made anonymous. On the other hand, in the case of a pieceof work in literature that is one of a kind, reviewing itwith the author’s name remaining anonymous can enableproper evaluation unaffected by the author’s reputation.
Normally, no compensation is paid for reviewing; being able to know new ideas of colleagues is itself a reward.
An excellent paper is very stimulating, and we can learneven from an immature paper as “an object lesson.” It isa waste of time, however, to read too poor a paper, whichmakes the authors lose their credibility.
The process of reviewing, but not its purpose or philosophy, might be similar to that of a trial in the court. An
author is like a “defendant,” and reviewers are like “juries” or relentless “prosecutors.” It is a little unreasonable
to compare an author who has done nothing wrong to a
defendant, but there is no other choice. The “judge” is ofcourse the editor of a journal.
An author has an obligation to respond “truthfully” andfaithfully to all questions or doubts by reviewers. If the author
cannot respond, this itself constitutes a reason for rejection.
Of course, when the author should make a refutation or is
imposed an unreasonable demand, he/she has to counter in a
logical manner like a competent lawyer. Since the reviewer’s
profile is invisible to the author, the latter has to have a solidcommand of logical thinking and argumentative techniques.
Conversely, the author does not have to explain anything
about what the reviewer did not ask about. We will lose if welose our confidence and flee before being chased.
If an issue is not resolved upon response by the author
to the reviewer, the reviewer can continue to pursue theissue. That is, if the reviewer is not convinced, so long as
the editor admits the necessity for continued examination,
the review process can continue for years. Sometimes theauthor may be asked to conduct a duplicate or additional
experiment within the limited period of 3 or 6 months.
New questions after the initial review are prohibited, however, since things will be out of control if a review starts
indicating new issues about existing data.
In a highly competitive area or with a journal withmany contributors, the decision for “acceptance” is seldom
made immediately, although the notice of “rejection” maycome immediately after the initial review or even without
review. If the paper is, unfortunately, “rejected,” we haveJ Neurogenet Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University of Tokyo on 04/06/12
For personal use only.

Hotta’s Maxims

no other choice but submit it to another journal. The mostfrequent decisions are “acceptance upon revision.” If we getthis reply, we have successfully cleared the first stage. Aftermaking the required revisions, we have to resubmit the paperwith a separate list in a question-and-answer format indicating which parts of the paper have been revised, and in whatway. Then the second stage of review begins. By undergoingsuch peer review, a paper is sure to become more readable
and precise. This is the greatest purpose of peer review.
If everything goes well, a paper may sometimes be
accepted within a month after submission. Sometimes,
however, it may take years before the paper is finalized after repeated struggles, involving additional or duplicate experiments for years or unreasonable interference in review.
If we submit our paper to a journal at a high level, we canreceive a valuable opinion, as the level of its reviewers is
also high. The competition, however, is intense with sucha journal, since it is popular. Even if we submit our paper
to a journal at a lower level, it does not mean our paper ismore likely to be accepted, since a terrible misunderstanding could occur due to the lower level of reviewers. What ismost important to a researcher is “never to give up until ourpaper is accepted.” We will thus experience a drama withups and downs until our paper is finalized.

21

In this way, the results of our research are publishedand our efforts for long years finally come to fruition.
Declaration of interest: The author reports no conflictsof interest. The author alone is responsible for the content
and writing of the paper.

REFERENCES
Sakai, K. L. (2006). The work of scientist—How is the creativity
emerged? [Japanese]. Tokyo: ChuoKoron-Shinsha. ISBN
4-12-101843-5, 340 pp.
Hotta, Y., & Sakai, K. L.(2007). Gene, brain, and language—
Science cafe for pleasure [Japanese]. Tokyo: ChuoKoronShinsha. ISBN 978-4-12-101887-8, 244 pp.
I would like to thank Joseph Kruempel (Journal of Neurogenetics
Editorial Office), who is a young scientist as well, for his
valuable suggestions on the manuscript. I also thank Yash
Hiromi for his preface and many comments, which surely
made my contribution more accessible to the readers.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Michael_Faraday
http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chousa/gijyutu/001/
toushin/010801.htm
http://www31.ocn.ne.jp/∼jucccopyright/