This paper proposes a philosophical reconstruction of the concept of “research data” in the context of Open Science. While institutional definitions vary widely and lack conceptual clarity, this study draws on insights from the philosophy of science and information to analyze three major perspectives—representational, relational, and diaphoric. Based on the latter, it introduces a compositional model that layers optional attributes (e.g., factive, retrievable, machine-readable) upon minimal differences. This model visualizes the structural assumptions behind institutional policies and serves as a bridge between conceptual analysis and data governance. It also clarifies how philosophical tools can inform and improve research data policies.

    This study conceptualizes research data management (RDM) in Japan as a “pre-institutional” field in which practice, rather than established systems, guides institutional formation. Drawing on tacit knowledge, experiential learning, legitimate peripheral participation, and the scientific field, it positions research support work as an intellectual practice mediating between researchers and institutional structures. Through analysis of Japan’s historical support context, the University of Vienna’s Data Steward Certificate Course, and the practical implementation efforts at The University of Osaka, the study shows how institutional understanding emerges through iterative practice. It proposes the intermediate qualification “Data Steward (provisional)” as a framework to formalize emerging expertise and support future professionalization in Japan.

    This paper examines “democratization” in Open Science (OS), distinguishing two dimensions: democratization of access (removing barriers to knowledge) and democratization of governance (participatory decision-making in scientific practice). Current OS policies, such as Plan S, disproportionately emphasize access while neglecting governance. This imbalance risks marginalizing diverse epistemological practices and reinforcing existing power structures. Drawing on Leonelli's “judicious connection” framework, this paper reframes OS as a problem of boundary-work governance. Genuine democratization requires not only expanding access to resources but also democratizing the processes that determine what counts as legitimate science and who participates in these decisions.

    When investigating the ontology of holes, two approaches can be taken: reductionism and anti-reductionism. In this paper, I defend reductionism by characterizing holes as a sort of spatio-temporal regions. This view requires dualistic substantivalism of spacetime. Despite the constraints on spacetime, holes can be located in the physical world due to their ontological status.

    This paper explores the origins of the “pain value intuition,” which claims that conscious pain is intrinsically bad. In previous studies, the “evaluative acquaintance account” is dominant, explaining that we have this intuition because we know the badness of pain directly through acquaintance. However, I propose the “evolutionary account,” which explains that we have this intuition because it enhanced our ancestors’ fitness, regardless of pain’s intrinsic badness; I argue that the evolutionary account should be the default explanation. This challenges many theories, including cognitivist hedonism, that rely on the evaluative acquaintance account to explain the value of conscious experiences.