|
작성일 : 17-06-30 22:51
|
FW: From South Korea / VSA (fwd)
|
 |
|
글쓴이 :
중대부고김희주
 조회 : 774
|
Dear Ms. Kim--
Thank you very much for your message about ocean nomenclature. I confess, I was entirely unaware of the issue, and I've spent some time before writing back to gain a better appreciation of the history of this dispute. I can appreciate that it is of no small importance for Koreans.
As a general rule, the journal seeks to follow (rather than set) policies for nomenclature of all types. That said, we also want to respect the respective positions of ongoing differences, and we expect scientific articles to meet the same standards. In this instance, the first principle would lead us to the guidance of the International Hydrographic Institute, which last reviewed this issue in 2012. I also see that it was anticipated to revisit the question in 2017, although I don't know if this has yet occurred (or if it has, what the outcome was). Since its formal decision in 2012 affirmed the historical use of "Sea of Japan," the journal would normally adhere to this official convention.
The second principle, that of maintaining respect for open (and credible) disputes, would lead us towards your proposed solution, namely the joint naming of the waterbody (at least on the map figure). Curiously, I see that the article uses neither terminology, instead calling it the "Japan Sea," a term having no apparent precedent at all.
Were this a recently published article I would be open to, although not yet embracing of, issuing a corrigendum--as a matter of editorial policy, I would look to our Editorial Board for final guidance. However, although the article was first posted online just a few months ago, it actually was originally published in 1992. Many, many changes in terminology have occurred in the last 25 years, and no journal attempts to keep pace with all of them (more typically, with none of them). I'm sorry to say that this will be the case here as well.
However, please don't believe that your letter has been without effect. It will be a simple matter to address this issue in the future, pre-publication, to ensure that we do not appear to be "taking sides" on an issue that is not central to the journal's scientific mission. It is a matter that can be easily addressed during the review and/or publication of an article, and this I can commit us to pursue from this point forward.
Thank you again for writing.
Sincerely,
Derek Booth
Senior Editor
|
|
|
|
