24小时热门版块排行榜    

查看: 6227  |  回复: 12
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

下雨天??

新虫 (小有名气)

[交流] ssci2区投稿现收到大修,请各位友友帮忙看看呀! 已有7人参与

两月初投的ssci 6.2给回复了 7月14日前上传文件。
第一次投稿啊,还是自己一个在做学术,没有团队,所以跪求友友们帮我看看给给意见!!
(第一次写稿不一定图片可以加进来,所以把审稿意见等文字版本发出来了


Referee: 1

Comments to the Author
This manuscript studies the impact of two forms of government innovation assistance programs - innovation subsidies and tax refunds - on the R&D production of Chinese pharmaceutical companies. This is a very interesting research topic for us. The study tests a number of hypotheses and draws conclusions through quantitative analysis. However, I would like to see more concrete raw data on the quantitative analysis. Otherwise, I do not find it very convincing. I would also like to see a specific discussion of the differences from previous studies. I believe the paper will be even better if you do so.
More specifically, I am worried about the following points.


(1) The authors present many hypotheses which are H1a, H1b, H2a, H2b, H3a, H3b, H4a, and H4b and analyze them quantitatively. The variable definitions and descriptive statistics are listed in Table1 and Table2 and the regression results for each model are shown the Table 3, Table 4, Table 5, Table 6, and Table 7. These results are then used to test the hypotheses and draw conclusions. However, the actual contents of Table1 and Table2 are black boxes, and there is no way to verify them. Also, there seems to be no explanation of the model from 1 to 4.

(2) Also, regarding the INPI that means the total number of patents in Table 1, the results are not compared and discussed with those of Cappelen et al. (2012) and Moretti and Wilson (2014), which are cited as previous studies. There is no crucial discussion of how the current results in China differ from the results in those other countries and also the reason why in this manuscript.

I cannot make an accurate judgment because I lack the materials to make a solid decision.


Referee: 2

Comments to the Author
Dear Author(s),
Overall paper is very well written and meets the required standards. However, a few suggestions are put forward to make its worth reading.
1. Abstract: A paragraph on methodology can make it a comprehensive abstract.
2. Literature review should be updated with a few recent papers i.e. 2020-21
3. Methodology: Page 09, line 36, 'Special Treatment (ST*) need to be defined in comprehensive way for the readers.
4. Moderator: page 11, The author(s) should clearly explain the time line and technique used to collect the primary data.
5. VIF threshold reference is missing. Author(s) may consider to provide even conservative reference due to given results.
6. It was observed that Author(s) have used different styles of result reporting, it may be uniformed with providing beta value and p-values i.e. page 17, line 55-60
7. Discussion and Conclusion: Author(s) must add some references in (Point-2) to strengthen the discussion part as provided in the same section i.e. (1 and 3)
8. Page 30, line 47, I guess it must be competitiveness rather than 'competitive'
9. In my opinion, a separate section on limitations and future research directions can make study worth reading.




Editor的主要倾向是:You will see that although the referees find some merit in the paper it is required that substantial revisions be done before we can consider it further.  Nevertheless, we do hope that you will be able to undertake the additional work on the paper and look forward to receiving a revised manuscript in due course.


很惶恐!主编的意思是能不能中呢?还有Referee: 1在说的black boxes 是啥意思?是在说我的数据论证不清晰么?还是在觉得我数据不真实呢??
球球了 帮我给点意见吧!!!!
比心
回复此楼

» 猜你喜欢

已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

holypower

至尊木虫 (文坛精英)


小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包,谢谢回帖
编辑是持积极态度的,但你需要让审稿人1信服你的数据,目前来看他觉得很难判断你的数据真实性!最简单的方法就是附上原始数据

发自小木虫IOS客户端
5楼2022-06-10 09:41:22
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
查看全部 13 个回答

1018415371

新虫 (正式写手)

2楼2022-06-10 08:36:25
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

SenX

金虫 (正式写手)

大修就有希望 black box感觉在说不太了解你的结论是如何得出的,也难以验证

发自小木虫Android客户端
3楼2022-06-10 08:42:33
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

下雨天??

新虫 (小有名气)

引用回帖:
3楼: Originally posted by SenX at 2022-06-10 08:42:33
大修就有希望 black box感觉在说不太了解你的结论是如何得出的,也难以验证

感激!我加油努力!
4楼2022-06-10 08:50:19
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
普通表情 高级回复 (可上传附件)
最具人气热帖推荐 [查看全部] 作者 回/看 最后发表
[基金申请] 2026国自然函评费到账 +9 羊腰板 2026-08-21 9/450 2026-08-22 00:03 by anji999
[基金申请] 放榜前的不淡定 40+4 snowwithsea 2026-08-19 14/700 2026-08-21 23:51 by cratir
[基金申请] 建议基金发布提前给出明确的时间点 +10 kulium 2026-08-21 13/650 2026-08-21 21:58 by alongwaytogo
[基金申请] filecode,4个jtjc了 +11 ziyangfang 2026-08-19 14/700 2026-08-21 16:51 by applepetty
[基金申请] 让我中一个面上吧! +11 大萍1987 2026-08-20 13/650 2026-08-21 14:48 by 20120902066
[基金申请] 人气不行了 +7 fansofjerry 2026-08-21 7/350 2026-08-21 14:13 by Vivilian
[基金申请] 只有每年这种时候来逛逛小木虫 +23 yaoyewhu2008 2026-08-20 25/1250 2026-08-21 12:19 by Poppy1104
[基金申请] 什么时候开奖? +7 CrisMessi 2026-08-18 7/350 2026-08-21 12:15 by weiyin
[基金申请] 时间戳又变了8-15 +15 archvillain 2026-08-15 27/1350 2026-08-21 11:32 by tim76
[基金申请] 今天基金会出结果吗?20260819 +15 kkkl_v 2026-08-19 16/800 2026-08-21 11:22 by 365372687
[基金申请] 应该是下周三26日公布了吧? +4 哈哈蛤? 2026-08-21 4/200 2026-08-21 10:58 by Vivilian
[基金申请] 今天放榜没戏了吧 +9 yuleib84 2026-08-19 11/550 2026-08-21 10:06 by gltch
[基金申请] 基金啊基金 +4 longfie172 2026-08-20 4/200 2026-08-21 08:58 by mark mao
[基金申请] 时间戳今天,20号变了 +4 archvillain 2026-08-20 4/200 2026-08-21 08:10 by gatelove
[基金申请] 估计是周四 +3 archvillain 2026-08-18 3/150 2026-08-21 01:48 by jnhyjjm
[基金申请] 今天系统多次维护,明天很可能放榜! +10 zju2000 2026-08-16 11/550 2026-08-20 20:02 by cl479861084
[教师之家] 为什么余额宝的年化利率越来越低?主要原因有哪些? +5 瞬息宇宙 2026-08-15 5/250 2026-08-19 20:23 by super2002521
[基金申请] 今天放榜吗? +14 布布和一二 2026-08-19 15/750 2026-08-19 18:07 by gltch
[基金申请] 2027广东省杰青 +4 奶牛小黑 2026-08-15 10/500 2026-08-19 11:02 by wanfengnew
[基金申请] 今天维护系统维护 祝所有人 高中 +8 gjjjzhong 2026-08-18 9/450 2026-08-18 13:01 by 家与远方
信息提示
请填处理意见