| 查看: 3721 | 回复: 56 | |||
| 【有奖交流】积极回复本帖子，参与交流，就有机会分得作者 maocltamu 的 10 个金币 ，回帖就立即获得 1 个金币，每人有 1 次机会 | |||
| 当前只显示满足指定条件的回帖，点击这里查看本话题的所有回帖 | |||
[交流]
Energy Policy 一审意见回复
|
|||
|
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！ |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
售SCI一区T0P文章，我:8.O.55.1.O54,科目全,可伽急
已经有5人回复
-
售SCI一区T0P文章，我:8.O55.1.O.54,科目全,可十急
已经有5人回复
-
售SCI一区T0P文章，我:8.O.55.1.O.54,科目齐全,可+急
已经有5人回复
-
售SCI文章，我:8O.5.5.1O.54,科目全,可十急
已经有4人回复
-
售SCI一区T0P文章，我:8O.55.1.O.54,科目全,可伽急
已经有4人回复
-
售SCI一区文章，我:8.O.55.1.O.54,科目齐全,可伽急
已经有5人回复
-
售SCI文章，我:8O.5.5.1O.54,科目全,可十急
已经有5人回复
-
售SCI一区T0P文章，我:8.O.55.1.O.5.4,科目全,可+急
已经有6人回复
-
延安大学回应“副教授留绝笔信”：确已离世，正核实举报内容
已经有5人回复
-
售SCI文章，我:8O5.5.1.O.54,科目齐全,可+急
已经有23人回复
8楼2018-12-27 14:51:11
