24小时热门版块排行榜    

查看: 5857  |  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
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] 273求调剂 +5 星星111222 2026-03-02 6/300 2026-03-06 17:42 by guosr9609
[考研] 材料277分求调剂 +13 饭饭星球 2026-03-04 14/700 2026-03-06 16:10 by @飒飒飒飒
[考研] 材料与化工304求B区调剂 +4 邱gl 2026-03-06 4/200 2026-03-06 15:51 by 聪明的大松鼠
[考研] 289求调剂 +3 驰光绝景 2026-03-04 4/200 2026-03-06 12:34 by 驰光绝景
[考研] 304求调剂 +3 52hz~~ 2026-03-05 4/200 2026-03-06 00:27 by wutongshun
[考研] 一志愿苏大材料工程专硕293求调剂 +3 钢铁大炮 2026-03-04 3/150 2026-03-05 21:07 by 黑衣馒头人
[考研] 化工282求调剂一志愿211 +5 NA0912 2026-03-05 6/300 2026-03-05 20:10 by 2735147993
[考研] 271求调剂 +7 月色c 2026-03-05 8/400 2026-03-05 19:51 by wangjihu
[考研] 085701环境工程 求调剂 +7 xiiiia 2026-03-04 7/350 2026-03-05 09:49 by 热情沙漠
[考研] 320材料一志愿西工大专硕英二数二 有两年光伏工作经验 +5 锤某人 2026-03-04 8/400 2026-03-05 09:24 by oxidpl
[考研] 求调剂 +7 博斯特525 2026-03-04 7/350 2026-03-04 18:09 by houyaoxu
[考研] 学硕材料275调剂 +9 路三三 2026-03-03 9/450 2026-03-04 17:02 by 梦天888
[考研] 0703化学调剂 +4 G212 2026-03-03 5/250 2026-03-04 09:34 by 每天只摆一小会
[论文投稿] EST拒稿重投 5+3 15102603076 2026-03-02 3/150 2026-03-04 00:51 by bobvan
[考研] 复试调剂 +4 杰尼龟aaa 2026-03-03 4/200 2026-03-03 23:06 by zhukairuo
[考研] 一志愿中科大能动297求调剂,本科川大 +3 邵11 2026-03-03 3/150 2026-03-03 14:50 by 新能源达人
[考研] 267求调剂 +6 钓鱼佬as 2026-03-02 6/300 2026-03-03 13:59 by 13589
[考研] 288求调剂 +3 少71.8 2026-03-02 5/250 2026-03-03 06:01 by tgxtgxtgx9
[考研] 272求调剂 +9 材紫有化 2026-02-28 9/450 2026-03-02 20:22 by hypershenger
[基金申请] 此成果不能导入原因:元数据必填信息不完整,可 进行补充。 +4 Kittylucky 2026-03-02 5/250 2026-03-02 11:07 by jurkat.1640
信息提示
请填处理意见