一审意见回来，两个审稿人，一个回复比较正面，改改就行，另一个审稿人意见如下：
As the authors mentioned, this paper presents the collaboration of the four countries in Southeast Asia, UNEP, and associated partners to develop NAMAs specifically for building sector. It gives a good description of literature review and how they do the project. However, an academic paper to be published in a peer-reviewed journal needs a good research question and a robust argument. At the current stage, this paper serves as a good report, but not an academic research. The authors need to accommodate a research question in their study, based on which they could extend their policy implications and recommendations.


本人也写过几篇SCI了，绝对不是语言的问题，感觉审稿人没看懂文章的逻辑，一般这种怎么修改，怎么回复？请大家帮忙！ 返回小木虫查看更多