| 查看: 516 | 回复: 0 | |||
| 【悬赏金币】回答本帖问题，作者dicknenu将赠送您 5 个金币 | |||
[求助]
投了篇meta分析，给了大修，这条审稿人的意见有点没看懂
|
|||
|
"List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made." It is not clear whether additional variables were sought and obtained. This bears on the question of whether the authors data-dredged to get their result. Nor is it clear whether any data conventions were set for the data obtained. |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
博士读完未来一定会好吗
已经有17人回复
-
心脉受损
已经有5人回复
-
Springer期刊投稿求助
已经有4人回复
-
读博
已经有3人回复
-
小论文投稿
已经有3人回复
-
Bioresource Technology期刊，第一次返修的时候被退回好几次了
已经有9人回复
-
到新单位后，换了新的研究方向，没有团队，持续积累2区以上论文，能申请到面上吗
已经有8人回复
-
申请2026年博士
已经有6人回复
