| 查看: 3810 | 回复: 21 | |||||
[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» 收录本帖的淘帖专辑推荐
 SCI写作、投稿、经验 | 论文评价 |
» 本帖已获得的红花（最新10朵）
wangqimaster» 猜你喜欢
求调剂
已经有3人回复
-
265求调剂
已经有4人回复
-
085700资源与环境308求调剂
已经有6人回复
-
一志愿吉林大学材料学硕321求调剂
已经有12人回复
-
286分人工智能专业请求调剂愿意跨考！
已经有3人回复
-
329求调剂
已经有5人回复
-
申请回稿延期一个月，编辑同意了。但系统上的时间没变，给编辑又写邮件了，没回复
已经有4人回复
-
材料学硕318求调剂
已经有5人回复
-
一志愿中国海洋大学，生物学，301分，求调剂
已经有6人回复
-
081700化工学硕调剂
已经有3人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- 呜呜呜，考博貌似犯了大忌，悲剧了，怎么办，求助。还有导师的信，想不想要我呢？
已经有24人回复
- 文章悲剧了 呜呜呜呜
已经有28人回复
3楼2013-01-16 11:55:00
qhd511
铁杆木虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 324 (大学生)
- 金币: 6915.3
- 散金: 226
- 红花: 12
- 帖子: 1922
- 在线: 390.1小时
- 虫号: 1079710
- 注册: 2010-08-22
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 环境分析化学
4楼2013-01-16 11:58:32
ldy85367996
木虫 (职业作家)
- 应助: 10 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 4035.6
- 帖子: 3032
- 在线: 247.9小时
- 虫号: 1829437
- 注册: 2012-05-22
- 性别: MM
- 专业: 有机合成
6楼2013-01-16 13:23:39
minierr
金虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 4 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 1218.6
- 红花: 12
- 帖子: 437
- 在线: 36.7小时
- 虫号: 1994757
- 注册: 2012-09-12
- 性别: MM
- 专业: 理论和计算化学
7楼2013-01-16 14:14:33
paperhunter
荣誉版主 (文学泰斗)
还没想好
-
专家经验: +14 - SEPI: 1
- 应助: 14603 (教授)
- 贵宾: 11.659
- 金币: 345467
- 散金: 9262
- 红花: 1423
- 沙发: 2016
- 帖子: 127554
- 在线: 8880.4小时
- 虫号: 971012
- 注册: 2010-03-14
- 专业: 环境工程
- 管辖: 论文投稿
8楼2013-01-16 14:34:23
hongliu2006
银虫 (小有名气)
- 应助: 2 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 221.1
- 红花: 1
- 帖子: 69
- 在线: 46.9小时
- 虫号: 1115620
- 注册: 2010-10-07
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 机械动力学
2楼2013-01-16 11:53:34
daysfoot
木虫 (职业作家)
- 应助: 53 (初中生)
- 金币: 4609.6
- 散金: 1000
- 红花: 9
- 帖子: 4657
- 在线: 792.7小时
- 虫号: 564759
- 注册: 2008-05-28
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 计算机科学
5楼2013-01-16 12:03:17
9楼2013-01-16 17:54:17
10楼2013-01-16 18:43:24
