24小时热门版块排行榜

>论坛更新日志 (3248)
>虫友互识 (354)
>文献求助 (203)
>休闲灌水 (180)
>导师招生 (154)
>考博 (78)
>博后之家 (50)
>硕博家园 (48)
>考研 (48)
>论文投稿 (40)
>基金申请 (34)
>论文道贺祈福 (31)
>公派出国 (30)
>找工作 (26)
>教师之家 (25)
>招聘信息布告栏 (23)

返回列表

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)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 252.9
散金: 100
红花: 1
沙发: 2
帖子: 228
在线: 38.6小时
虫号: 7532564
注册: 2017-11-27
性别: MM
专业: 会计学

[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