24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

当前主题已经存档。

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

jkdh

银虫 (小有名气)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 304.3
帖子: 284
在线: 9.6小时
虫号: 557784
注册: 2008-05-13

[交流] 这个审稿结果修改后录用的概率有多大？（重谢热心认真回复）

Here are the review reports for “论文题目”, one quite negative, the other not so.

The Editors like the topic and would like you to revise the submission, incorporating as many of the referees' suggestions as possible. If the revised version is acceptable, we would publish it in either our September 2010 issue or our March 2011 issue.

Your deadline for the revised version would be 18 June.

Please let me know as soon as possible if you are interested in this offer.

Sincerely,

***

Report #1

Recommendation:  Re-submit

Comments and suggestions:

Overall speaking, the paper is largely descriptive—it primarily reports the results of a “content analysis” of government documents.  It could not be considered as an analytical piece because it lacks a theoretical underpinning to tie its arguments together in a coherent manner.

Weak arguments and faulty logic

The first half of the paper is original because it makes a contribution to our understanding of the changing pattern of environmental policy priorities in China.  The second part of the paper (starting on page 16) is, however, very disappointing because the “Discussion” section is very descriptive; its arguments too generalized and its deliberations hardly vigorous.  Its fatal drawback is the lack of evidence to support many of the statements made.

Statements made in the “Discussion” section are largely very descriptive; they are usually presented in this simple logic—a particular environmental problem has worsened over time, therefore more regulations were introduced to address it.  A major deficiency of this line of argument is that, throughout the entire paper, no time-series data have been presented to show that a priority environmental problem has indeed worsened over the period being examined!  Evidence is totally lacking to support this type of argument.

Another type of simple logic was offered to account for the high level of policy attention on a priority issue: “a high level of potential environmental impact” of the issue (page 17, line 4).  Again, only a generalized statement was offered to account for the Chinese government’s concern over radioactive pollution: “The potential catastrophe that would result from a nuclear accident forces the Chinese government to focus great attention on this issue.”  This statement is far from any form of evidence to suggest “a high level of potential environmental impact” in association with radioactive pollution.  Reports on specific studies focusing radioactive pollution, if any, should have been reviewed and cited to support such a claim.

There are other examples of poor logic employed to explain government actions.  For instance, on page 19-20, the author wrote “The full use of mandatory regulations indicates that the Chinese government puts environmental protection as a higher priority.”  As it has been widely acknowledged, the Ministry of Environment in China is a weak government agency, and whatever authority granted to it in 2007 to control development projects (mentioned on page 19) has been eroded, if not totally removed, by the imperative to develop the economy.

On page 20, there is no apparent logic connecting these two sentences—one starting with “Khanna emphasized the …” and ensuing one that begins with “Therefore, the government …”.

Lack of vigorous deliberations

The author divided the overall period of 1999-2008 into five sub-periods, presumably as a matter of convenience.  By doing so, the author has inadvertently brushed aside the significance of important events that should have contributed to the explanation of the changing pattern of the environmental policy priorities.  At the moment, the discussion was conducted without any regard to any major social, economic or political incidents that might have impinged upon the Central government’s environmental policies.  For instance, the rapidly increasingly number of reported social protests, observed at the local scale in the countryside, that are driven by environmental pollution problems should have been included in the discussion to help account for the changing policy priorities at the top.

Very weak conclusion

On page 21, the author wrote that “… local governments in China have implemented a series of policies enacted by the Central government and that …”.  This claim is far from the truth.  A substantial body of literature that focuses on the problem of policy implementation in China has shown that local governments have always found excuses not to implement fully environmental policies promulgated by the central government, particularly when such policies conflict with local development imperatives.

Moreover, the author made many normative statements (e.g., “China should make more efforts in the field of global environmental affairs …”, on page 22) that are not necessarily informed or supported by earlier empirical findings.  These statements reinforce the impression of a largely descriptive piece; and they expose the weak base of the paper—it lacks an overall theoretical framework to begin with.  And the discussion was conducted without any reference at all to the larger, evolving social and political contexts.

Report #2

Accept with Minor Revisions

The paper, through using content analysis of China’s government documents on environmental protection during the period 1998 to 2008, empirically demonstrated the recent changes and characteristics related to the country’s environmental policies. One of the most valuable points the author has made is that environmental policy instruments adopted by the government have shifted from an emphasis on command-and-control regulations towards more use of economic incentives. This helps China watchers to better understand the Chinese government’s regulatory role in today’s economic and social activities in the country. In general, the paper gave us a very clear picture about China’s recent policy shift in the area of environmental protection.

For the literature review part in the beginning, the author needs to further strengthen it by quoting more diversified points of view from other sources such as Elizabeth Economy’s works on the pollution of China, the reports of the World Bank and OECD, Ma Jun’s book on China’s water crisis or Xiaoying Ma & Leonard Ortolanao’s book on the environmental regulation in China. Besides, it will be better if the author gives more in-depth explanation about why such policy changes have taken place.

回复此楼