24小时热门版块排行榜    

Znn3bq.jpeg
查看: 5979  |  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

下雨天??

新虫 (小有名气)

引用回帖:
5楼: Originally posted by holypower at 2022-06-10 09:41:22
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

不是很想附上原始数据,有部分是手动收集的花了老鼻子劲。而且我不是很理解,如果原始数据发过去会公开么?(其实我的态度还是希望不希望搜集整理的原始数据被公开,后续还准备继续用写发文章
6楼2022-06-10 09:58:45
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
[考研] 材料相关专业344求调剂双非工科学校或课题组 +25 hualkop 2026-04-12 27/1350 2026-04-19 01:58 by 烟雨流涯
[考研] 291求调剂 +10 关忆北. 2026-04-14 10/500 2026-04-18 23:32 by 路病情
[考研] 320求调剂 +5 深郊akm 2026-04-17 5/250 2026-04-18 19:52 by 王珺璞
[考研] 化学070300 求调剂 +29 哈哈哈^_^ 2026-04-12 29/1450 2026-04-18 15:56 by Equinoxhua
[考研] 22408 312求调剂 +24 门路摸摸 2026-04-14 26/1300 2026-04-18 13:04 by wunaiy88
[考研] 一志愿华中农业071010,320求调剂 +17 困困困困坤坤 2026-04-14 19/950 2026-04-17 20:08 by 关一盏灯cd
[有机交流] 二苯甲酮酸类衍生物 50+3 小白爱主人 2026-04-17 6/300 2026-04-17 18:47 by kf2781974
[考研] 一志愿中科大材料与化工,353分还有调剂学校吗 +10 否极泰来2026 2026-04-15 12/600 2026-04-17 17:54 by mapenggao
[考研] 295分求调剂 +5 ?要上岸? 2026-04-17 5/250 2026-04-17 16:51 by fenglj492
[考研] 294求调剂 +7 淡然654321 2026-04-17 8/400 2026-04-17 16:36 by wutongshun
[基金申请] RY:中国产出的科学垃圾论文,绝对数量和比例都世界第一 +7 zju2000 2026-04-14 18/900 2026-04-16 11:36 by 欢乐颂叶蓁
[考研] 289 分105500药学专硕求调剂(找B区学校) +4 白云123456789 2026-04-13 4/200 2026-04-16 00:18 by 粉沁若尘
[考研] 求调剂学校 +14 不会吃肉 2026-04-13 16/800 2026-04-15 21:59 by noqvsozv
[考研] 297,工科调剂? +10 河南农业大学-能 2026-04-14 10/500 2026-04-15 21:50 by noqvsozv
[考研] 0854调剂 +13 长弓傲 2026-04-12 16/800 2026-04-15 13:45 by fenglj492
[考研] 105500药学求调剂 +4 x_skys 2026-04-12 4/200 2026-04-14 13:37 by rndfc
[考研] 考研求调剂 +12 子木呐 2026-04-12 13/650 2026-04-14 01:19 by 王珺璞
[考研] 考研英一数一338分 +9 长江大学东校区 2026-04-13 10/500 2026-04-14 00:41 by 王珺璞
[考研] B区0809 ,数一英一,290 求调剂 +3 泠潍1111 2026-04-12 4/200 2026-04-13 20:35 by 学员JpLReM
[考研] +10 李多米lee. 2026-04-12 11/550 2026-04-12 22:58 by yuyin1233
信息提示
请填处理意见