| 查看: 5821 | 回复: 32 | ||
| 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 | ||
[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» 猜你喜欢
0856调剂，是学校就去
已经有7人回复
-
0817 化学工程 299分求调剂 有科研经历 有二区文章
已经有14人回复
-
申博26年
已经有3人回复
-
一志愿吉林大学材料学硕321求调剂
已经有10人回复
-
0703化学调剂 ，六级已过，有科研经历
已经有12人回复
-
294求调剂材料与化工专硕
已经有13人回复
-
288求调剂
已经有14人回复
-
307求调剂
已经有8人回复
-
一志愿南京理工大学085701资源与环境302分求调剂
已经有5人回复
-
288求调剂，一志愿华南理工大学071005
已经有5人回复
22楼2013-03-23 19:14:25
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
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）
hql19745楼2013-03-22 19:38:14
