In Japan, a prevailing misconception prevails, stemming from historical flaws in the magazine and book industries that have persistently remained uncorrected, leading to an unrefined and unconventional state of affairs. Criticisms frequently target both the bookstore and publishing sectors. It increasingly appears inevitable that a direction involving more stringent control over the number of new releases is warranted.
Shifting focus, it’s a common occurrence that exceptionally significant work is undertaken by a select few. For example, teams akin to “reporting units” in newspapers or broadcasts often comprise fewer than two or three individuals, and in many instances, the bulk of achievements falls squarely upon a single key figure. Similarly, within the territory of natural science research, examining indices like the “Nature Index” unveils institutions that, by virtue of opportune collaborations, likely bolster their contributions, alongside distinguished individuals making original contributions that distinguish them. Nevertheless, these intricacies tend to remain opaque to external observers.
Meanwhile, discussion in New York is steadily yielding commendable academic results.
Leave a Reply