24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

zeng3794

银虫 (初入文坛)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 232.3
帖子: 45
在线: 28.9小时
虫号: 934560
注册: 2009-12-28
专业: 流行病学方法与卫生统计

[交流] 审稿四个月,今天出结果了,悲剧了,呜呜呜已有20人参与

我的心哇哇的,审稿意见如下:
Ms. Ref. No.: ******
Title: ***********************************
Nursing Outlook

Dear ******,

I recently received back the reviewers' comments about your manuscript. The reviewers believe this is an interesting paper that addresses an important topic consistent with the editorial purpose of NO. However, based on the reviewers' comments (see attached), I regret I must reject the paper for publication in Nursing Outlook. I am attaching a copy of the reviews. If you choose to revise the manuscript and resubmit elsewhere you may find their suggestions helpful.

We thank you for considering Nursing Outlook for dissemination of your work.

Sincerely,

Marion E. Broome, PhD, RN, FAAN
Editor-in-Chief
Nursing Outlook

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1: The authors address the topic of interdisciplinarity of nursing journals which is potentially of interest to nurse researchers,particularly those who consider themselves to direct interdisciplinary programs of research. However, given the poor quality of English, it is difficult to ascertain the quality of the research presented including the methods applied and the interpretation of the results. Moreover, it is not clear why the findings are important to researchers, clinicians, educators, or policy makers.

Reviewer #2: Overall, this paper was interesting but there are some issues with the methodology that need to be addressed and there are many sentences throughout the paper that need to be rewritten.

This manuscript was difficult to read at times as many sentences often lacked a flow.  Many times the wrong tense or an incorrect version of the word was used - e.g promotion instead of promoting.    Example sentences "And we can know about a common cognition of the expect for promotion ability and status of interdisciplinary research in nursing from them. Researchers have been focusing on the strategy to the goal."

Sometimes the author was a little too direct in conjecture statements - e.g. "However, nursing is in an embarrassment status in interdisciplinary research." (bottom of pg 2)

Lit Review - page 4 - "One of indicators in our study was similar to theirs (Percentage of Multi-Assignation), but a revised one, which considered more impact of the number of multi-assigned journals. Our study also assumed that multi-assigned journals were more interdisciplinary than single-assigned ones as they did." These statements belong in the methodology, not the lit review.

The methodology of this study does seem logical.  Given that previous research has employed a similar methodology to the one used by this study to demonstrate the validity of using the subjects assigned to JCR journals to determine interdisciplinarity, using it again for another discipline makes sense.  However, JCR is known to not be very inclusive of nursing journals (although it is improving).  I wonder if this is a relevant issue and something the authors should mention in limitations of the study --  assuming  its possible that the limited inclusion of nursing journals in JCR  may impact the results of this study.

One issue that needs to be addressed in the methodology is why the social science version was not used in this study, particularly since the Science version of JCR did not include Nursing from 1998 to 2001.  The author only briefly acknowledges the existence of the social science edition of journal citation reports and it should be noted that the SocSciEd. includes nursing journals in all years from 1997 to the present. The social science version of JCR includes at least 41 journals from 1997 to 2001.  In 2002, the social science version of JCR goes down to 33, suggesting that some journals from this list went to the Science JCR list. It would be curious to know what the outcome of this study would be if the nursing journals from both the social science JCR version and the science JCR version were included.

回复此楼