| 查看: 2787 | 回复: 6 | |||
| 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 | |||
zhuzi948银虫 (初入文坛)
|
[交流]
Research on Social Work Practice【SSCI】投稿经验已有2人参与
|
||
|
2012年2月24日正式提交投稿 2012年4月6日Major revision 通过编辑的邮件可知，两位reviewer的意见都是recommend and major revision，最后主编给出的意见就是conditional accepted after revision。 审稿人给的建议相当详细，分别针对各个部分给出了约40个审稿意见。 但是要求修回的时间只有30天，据主编说发表周期较短，因此返修时间也很短。 2012年4月11日修改完毕，交给通讯作者审阅，他觉得没问题后即可提交。 目前结果未知~有了以后及时更新呗~~如果需要审稿建议，我也可以贴上来，留言即可 [ Last edited by seapass on 2012-4-14 at 14:49 ] |
回复此楼» 本帖已获得的红花（最新10朵）
diane0126» 猜你喜欢
寻求一种能扛住强氧化性腐蚀性的容器密封件
已经有7人回复
-
到新单位后，换了新的研究方向，没有团队，持续积累2区以上论文，能申请到面上吗
已经有8人回复
-
申请2026年博士
已经有6人回复
-
请问哪里可以有青B申请的本子可以借鉴一下。
已经有5人回复
-
天津工业大学郑柳春团队欢迎化学化工、高分子化学或有机合成方向的博士生和硕士生加入
已经有5人回复
-
2025冷门绝学什么时候出结果
已经有7人回复
-
请问有评职称，把科研教学业绩算分排序的高校吗
已经有6人回复
-
Bioresource Technology期刊，第一次返修的时候被退回好几次了
已经有7人回复
-
请问下大家为什么这个铃木偶联几乎不反应呢
已经有5人回复
-
康复大学泰山学者周祺惠团队招收博士研究生
已经有6人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
zhuzi948
银虫 (初入文坛)
- 应助: 0 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 385.3
- 散金: 50
- 帖子: 30
- 在线: 26.7小时
- 虫号: 1197931
- 注册: 2011-01-30
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 社会学
★ ★ ★
avast2009: 金币+3, 鼓励交流 2012-04-17 13:31:57
avast2009: 金币+3, 鼓励交流 2012-04-17 13:31:57
|
这是社会工作领域的期刊啊，具体信息可以搜一下！我本人是学临床心理学的，跟社会工作实践实际上是有很大关系的。 写作经验跟写国内的文章差不多，简洁明了，方法正确就是了。不过选题很重要啦~ 我是修订一个量表，VIA-IS，目前是社会科学领域的大热门！已经有7-9个不同国家给出了其信效度报告，我们这个研究在中国文化下给出了一个比较详细的报告，同时试图摸索出如何保证测量等价性的一些操作手段。 等这篇完善后，我们还继续对其心理测量学特征进行更明确的报告，这估计就是下一篇的主题了！ |
3楼2012-04-14 19:56:53
2楼2012-04-14 16:43:03
4楼2012-04-17 13:28:52
zhuzi948
银虫 (初入文坛)
- 应助: 0 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 385.3
- 散金: 50
- 帖子: 30
- 在线: 26.7小时
- 虫号: 1197931
- 注册: 2011-01-30
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 社会学
★ ★ ★ ★ ★
avast2009: 金币+5, 鼓励交流 2012-04-27 08:44:55
avast2009: 金币+5, 鼓励交流 2012-04-27 08:44:55
|
把comment贴上来，供大家考评啊，看看有没有戏！ Editor's Notes: Please make sure that the references are in correct APA style. For example, the name of the journal in the Biswas reference is not italicized, and it should be. Remove the issue number from all references to articles appearing in journal's paginated by year (which is most of them). Begin the list of references on a new page. Insert an APA-style header and page number on every page. Reviewer: 1 (Recommended a Major Revision) The paper “Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the Values in Action Inventory” was a good attempt to show the reliabilities and validities of the short-version of VIA, and its applicability in Chinese cultural settings. Further revisions are needed before it is recommended for publication. Introduction (1) More description of the original VIA and its theoretical framework is needed, in order to let the readers know the background, and can compare how the short-version developed in this study is compatible with the original one. (2) On p.4, what does “(re Table 1)” stand for? (3) The authors argued that it is important to examine the factorial invariance of the virtue structure in different cultures. Please explain why it is important. Actually, different structures were found in existing research and the authors’ research, what is your explanation to this phenomenon? (4) More arguments are needed to support why it is important to test the Chinese version of VIA. Although the authors have given some items to illustrate there may be some cultural differences, it seems that these are the findings / discussion of your research. In the introduction, a general review of the cultural differences related to character strengths or interpretations of character strengths is needed. Further strengthening of your arguments for research in examining the functional equivalence of VIA is needed. (5) “Item 15 of the VIA-IS (“I have no trouble eating healthy foods”) may not be suitable for those who do not have a clear concept of “healthy food”. Obviously it is not related to cultural differences, but related to the respondents’ educational background / knowledge. However, this situation is common when collecting data through questionnaires, in which respondents are required to fill in answers based on their subjective perceptions and knowledge. Method (1) Please describe the sampling method of the interview participants, and the mean age (SD) of the interviewed participants. (2) I wonder there should be a Phase 3 or not, as what mentioned in Phase 3 was how the data collected in Phase 1 was analyzed. Please consider moving this section under Phase 1 or data analysis. (3) Materials: please mention the no. of items in the VIA. (4) Please explain the purposes of asking those questions in the interviews. E.g. for checking the content validity of the VIA or so. (5) Data analysis, “Items not culturally appropriate would be excluded so that the final number of items would be less than 240.” Please clarify what is meant by “not cultural appropriate”. Results (1) Why there are results of test-retest reliabilities? It seems that the authors had not mentioned any retest in the method section. Discussion (1) Discussion is too thin, please discuss your research findings with reference to your research aims (i.e. (1) examine if the 24 strengths could be grouped into the same 6 virtues proposed by Peterson and Seligman (2004), and (2) to examine the appropriateness and functional equivalence of the VIA-IS items in measuring the corresponding character strengths among the Chinese) (2) It appears that the selection of items for the short-version of VIA was mainly statistically driven. Actually, decisions should also be theoretically driven. Please elaborate why claiming the resultant VIA as “a theoretically meaningful three-factor of virtue”. Also, do you think the short version in compatible to the original one? Reviewer: 2 (Recommended a Major Revision) As the Values in Action Inventory is a popular scale used in social sciences, this study is critical in assessing the psychometric properties of the scale in Chinese context so that it can be used in cross-cultural psychology. However, the reviewer has raised some queries in this manuscript: 1. The Chinese cultural foundation of the scale a. Please elaborate the various writings of philosophers (P.3). b. Chinese culture is a solid tradition with different domains and conceptual frameworks. However, the study’s treatment to Chinese culture is very fragmented. The authors inspect item by item (P.4) without reference to a particular Chinese cultural foundation. It is imprudent and without conceptual framework. Even if the authors argue that there are many Chinese traditions, they can delineate several main lines of arguments so that the values can be conceptualized, e.g. Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism, Mohism. The treatment of items is very crude and random. 2. Participants and procedures a. The division of phases is puzzled. Phase 1 is only data collection “without” data analysis. Please re-phrase more carefully. b. The data analysis procedures and the subsequence internal sequences within Phase 3 are not clear. c. The item loading cut-off of .60 is very high. It also implies that double loading occurs very seriously. Please clarify. d. The decision of removing items and domains (Strengths) is not clear. Please provide the rotated factor matrix so that the readers can also inspect the factor loading. e. Why is it necessary to retain the same number of items per strength? Is it possible that the removal of items for some strengths is owing to retain the same number of items. f. For Phase 2, please clarify the choice of undergraduate students instead of expert panels. g. The decision of adopting a particular EFA and CFA is not discussed, not to mention the particular rotation and the software performing CFA. 3. Results a. Authors perform an EFA first for 240 items. Authors can consider item removal by means of gross item-item or item-total reliability, and content validity. b. The results of Phase 2 are very crude. Please explain the decision making of the 240 items, especially the removal of 103 items and 27 items (P.8) item by item. c. If authors remove so many items, how far authors claim authors are using the same scale as before? It is also a matter of cross-cultural comparison. I would suggest authors giving a new name to the scale, adding some cultural-relevant items. Now authors are restrained by the original factor solution, removing items and having another factor solution. The new scale is not the old scale anymore. d. After authors have removed so many items, is the original factor, i.e. strength valid? The most puzzling procedure is that authors still calculate the reliability of original strengths for the new 96-item data set. But then afterwards authors remove some strengths altogether. In this scale, sometimes authors remove items and sometimes authors remove the strengths (with the items) altogether. As authors say in the text, some items may belong to different domains for Chinese. If authors remove the whole strengths (P.9), some removed items may be valid for other strengths. e. The authors use much space in describing removing items and keeping the strengths. Then the authors adopt new factor solution. The EFA and CFA processes for the new scales are trivial. f. (P.10) Please justify the remarks that the correlation of .64 implies independent constructs. g. For the CFA, please propose hypothesized models for comparison. Indeed the RMSEA is excellent. However, is it possible that there are some better factor solutions? The authors have to develop and dispute alternative hypothesized models. Please refer to other journals of CFA. h. There are not other validity checks in this study, e.g. criterion-related validity and construct validity. The psychometric properties of the scale are afterall not solid. 4. Discussion a. As the scale is about Chinese, the scale should discuss the relevance of Chinese culture to this scale. b. Please spell out relevant social work implications of your study. c. It is interesting that the authors have called out a new virtue at the end of the discussion. They should consider the virtue at the beginning of the scale construction process. d. What are the comparisons of the current findings with other published psychometric properties of this popular scale? |
5楼2012-04-26 23:43:03