I was fortunate to receive a best paper award at an international conference this year.

I am so lucky that even now I wonder, 'Were I being cheated?

To be honest, I even thought that the paper would not even be accepted, let alone win the best paper award.

This is because I wrote this paper in the same style of the columns I usually write.

-----

In other words, it is a bare-bones description of anger, frustration, regret, problems, complaints, and claims that keep cropping up in the field, without going beyond the style of a thesis statement.

In a nutshell, the paper was like a "list of minefields for field trials," and was the culmination of a protest against "those who talk about 'field trials' so casually".

In hindsight, I think,

"Was that what they liked about it?"

The paper reviewer may have been someone who had seen 'hell' in a field trial.

If they are such persons, it is possible that they may have "emotionally accepted (adopted) the paper before examining the content carefully".

If I were a reviewer, I would do so(I assure you).

Therefore, if you are a researcher, I recommend that you try to write a paper that puts emotion not only front but also all.

-----

If possible, I strongly recommend writing in a language other than Japanese.

I know from experience that there will be fewer claims from various parts of the domestic.