24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

【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

maocltamu

金虫 (著名写手)

应助: 2 (幼儿园)
金币: 3112.2
帖子: 1122
在线: 152.1小时
虫号: 6795300

[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