| 查看: 5875 | 回复: 32 | |||
[求助]
SSCI大修后再送另一审稿人被拒，请大家帮看一下意见
|
|||
是SSCI，第一次审稿人(一位)给的大修。今日编辑回复拒稿了。 毕业要延期了。 大家帮看一下。仔细回复了上个审稿人的意见，原想没问题的，最不可能的料想却发生了。It is my understanding that this paper has been returned with amendments to the journal. I have seen the list of corrections made and the final draft of the paper. I have been asked to make a decision on the publishability of this paper. This is actually quite an interesting research topic, although it is presented in a very poor manner. First, let me comment on the language. The paper is no where near publishable standard in an English language journal. There are many errors of all sorts. I am unable to list them as there are just too many. I would suggest that the paper should have been reviewed by an English language expert before being submitted to an English language journal. The competition for space in an English language academic journal is intense, and the language has to be near-perfect if the paper is to be seriously considered. The editor can made some changes, but not as many as appear in this paper. The second problem is the organization. The paper is a bit of a jumble. We have an introduction with some literature review, then a brief section on research methodology, then some more literature review. Re-organize and get the different parts sorted out. The research methodology is inadequate. We are told that a survey was done in 3 towns, but there is not explanation about how the 652 respondents were chosen, or what they were asked, or how the survey was carried out. This is important as otherwise it is impossible for the reader to judge the merit and reliability of the survey. Were random means chosen to select the respondents? How were they identified? Much of the explanation is inadequate. The term 'hometown' is thrown around quite loosely. It appears in the Highlights, in Table 1 and elsewhere, yet it is difficult to find a very precise definition of what the author means by this term. Table 3 is a very uninteresting way to present the results. Also, what justification is there to express the percentages in the results in hundredths of one per cent, especially when the survey itself is less than 1000 respondents? Tenths is the best you can do. Finally, what are the policy implications of the research? This appears to be just a survey, and description of the results, an application of some statistical results that are poorly presented, and that is all. What is the point of the research if one cannot change things for the better? Although there is promise here, this paper is so far away from publishable standard that I can only recommend rejection at this stage. |
回复此楼» 收录本帖的淘帖专辑推荐
 论文投稿交流的收集 |
» 猜你喜欢
301求调剂
已经有18人回复
-
化工学硕 285求调剂
已经有19人回复
-
328求调剂
已经有8人回复
-
求调剂
已经有28人回复
-
304求调剂（085602，过四级，一志愿985）
已经有21人回复
-
288环境专硕,求调材料方向
已经有33人回复
-
285求调剂
已经有16人回复
-
273求调剂
已经有41人回复
-
331求调剂
已经有4人回复
-
298求调剂
已经有4人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- 投稿PLOS one 大修，审稿人要求补实验，不补的话被拒概率多少
已经有12人回复
- 大修后被编辑拒掉，重投会换审稿人吗？
已经有13人回复
- 大修返回快20天，发现状态是又重新分配了审稿人，是不是要被拒了？忑忑，担心ing
已经有9人回复
- 论文大修后审稿人认为我没有认真修改被拒，想写申诉信，怎么写比较合适
已经有5人回复
- 初审意见两个审稿人，一个强调创新性不强，一个要求大修. 该 怎样回复啊？ 谢谢
已经有39人回复
- IOP大修后重投 审稿人一周返回意见 是悲是喜？
已经有9人回复
- 审稿人说大修，但是论文被拒，给编辑再发邮件申诉有用吗 7.19 更新
已经有30人回复
- 有没有两个审稿人一个拒，一个大修，然后编辑reject但是可以resubmit
已经有16人回复
- 大修时对英语写作做了相应修改，应该如何回复审稿人意见
已经有4人回复
- 两审稿人给大修后重审，副主编却给了个拒稿结论，我该咋办？
已经有34人回复
- 投SCI大修，审稿人2个同意一个拒稿
已经有18人回复
guershao
至尊木虫 (职业作家)
- 应助: 91 (初中生)
- 金币: 17204.2
- 散金: 1863
- 红花: 10
- 帖子: 3246
- 在线: 1201.4小时
- 虫号: 711670
- 注册: 2009-03-01
- 专业: 管理学其他学科
【答案】应助回帖
★ ★ ★ ★ ★
感谢参与，应助指数 +1
avast2009: 回帖置顶 2013-03-23 18:25:21
avast2009: 金币+5, 鼓励高质量应助 2013-03-23 18:25:46
感谢参与，应助指数 +1
avast2009: 回帖置顶 2013-03-23 18:25:21
avast2009: 金币+5, 鼓励高质量应助 2013-03-23 18:25:46
|
1. 语法需要大的修改，找老板、英语好的人或者老外帮你修改一下语法，其实只要认真改过一次之后，以后都不存在这个问题了； 2. 文章的结构安排不合理，要前后有逻辑，首先是提出问题，然后提出研究假设等... 3. 方法方面存在欠缺，或者是没有解释清楚的问题，要交代清楚，或者有文献进行佐证。 4. 人文社科的论文，要上升到政策层面，对关注相关问题层面的人提出相关的政策建议或者对策，或者你是研究的升华。 |
» 本帖已获得的红花（最新10朵）
hql1974
5楼2013-03-22 19:38:14
 |
2楼2013-03-22 18:13:40
sunpingli
金虫 (小有名气)
不知道
- 应助: 12 (小学生)
- 金币: 2780.7
- 红花: 1
- 帖子: 234
- 在线: 83小时
- 虫号: 961460
- 注册: 2010-03-04
- 性别: MM
- 专业: 呼吸系统疾病其他科学问题
3楼2013-03-22 19:06:06
happy617
新虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 59 (初中生)
- 金币: 7682.1
- 散金: 5787
- 红花: 15
- 帖子: 2238
- 在线: 690.8小时
- 虫号: 1850867
- 注册: 2012-06-07
- 专业: 创新管理
4楼2013-03-22 19:24:11
mikefallon
木虫 (小有名气)
- 应助: 103 (高中生)
- 金币: 4126.3
- 红花: 5
- 帖子: 271
- 在线: 240.2小时
- 虫号: 1446801
- 注册: 2011-10-17
- 专业: 零件成形制造
6楼2013-03-22 19:42:38
lqingh506
铁杆木虫 (知名作家)
- 应助: 314 (大学生)
- 金币: 10859.9
- 散金: 1523
- 红花: 75
- 帖子: 7623
- 在线: 3397.9小时
- 虫号: 723546
- 注册: 2009-03-15
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 无机非金属类光电信息与功
7楼2013-03-22 19:55:49
 谢谢各位虫友的解析，感激。大修改后自己和老师都较满意(原想会令上个审稿人满意)，不料又送了另一审稿人定夺，唉，挺受打击的。纽结编辑怎么没再给改的机会呢，自己觉得文章已改的可以了。挺无奈的。再请教一下：Table 3 is a very uninteresting way to present the results. Also, what justification is there to express the percentages in the results in hundredths of one per cent, especially when the survey itself is less than 1000 respondents? Tenths is the best you can do. 我用到535个样本，回归显著性这样标不可以吗？ Notes: *
|
8楼2013-03-22 20:05:40
mlanqiang
木虫之王 (文学泰斗)
蓝博士
- 应助: 3409 (副教授)
- 金币: 55278.8
- 散金: 5498
- 红花: 62
- 帖子: 73916
- 在线: 730.8小时
- 虫号: 302202
- 注册: 2006-12-02
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 胶体与界面化学
9楼2013-03-22 20:11:59
谢谢相助，感觉到小木虫的温暖。努力修改。 10楼2013-03-22 21:53:32
