24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

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

hql1974

银虫 (小有名气)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 547.8
红花: 1
帖子: 85
在线: 102.7小时
虫号: 2099814
注册: 2012-11-01
性别: MM
专业: 农林经济管理

[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