| ²é¿´: 5813 | »Ø¸´: 32 | |||
| µ±Ç°Ö»ÏÔʾÂú×ãÖ¸¶¨Ìõ¼þµÄ»ØÌû£¬µã»÷ÕâÀï²é¿´±¾»°ÌâµÄËùÓлØÌû | |||
hql1974Òø³æ (СÓÐÃûÆø)
|
[ÇóÖú]
SSCI´óÐÞºóÔÙËÍÁíÒ»Éó¸åÈ˱»¾Ü£¬Çë´ó¼Ò°ï¿´Ò»ÏÂÒâ¼û
|
||
ÊÇSSCI£¬µÚÒ»´ÎÉó¸åÈË(һλ)¸øµÄ´óÐÞ¡£½ñÈձ༻ظ´¾Ü¸åÁË¡£ ±ÏÒµÒªÑÓÆÚÁË¡£ ´ó¼Ò°ï¿´Ò»Ï¡£×Ðϸ»Ø¸´ÁËÉϸöÉó¸åÈ˵ÄÒâ¼û£¬ÔÏëûÎÊÌâµÄ£¬×î²»¿ÉÄܵÄÁÏÏëÈ´·¢ÉúÁË¡£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. |
» ÊÕ¼±¾ÌûµÄÌÔÌûר¼ÍƼö
ÂÛÎÄͶ¸å½»Á÷µÄÊÕ¼¯ |
» ²ÂÄãϲ»¶
281Çóµ÷¼Á£¨0805£©
ÒѾÓÐ8È˻ظ´
»·¾³ÁìÓòÈ«¹úÖØµãʵÑéÊÒÕÐÊÕ²©Ê¿1-2Ãû
ÒѾÓÐ3È˻ظ´
²ÄÁÏר˶306Ó¢Ò»Êý¶þ
ÒѾÓÐ10È˻ظ´
301Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ6È˻ظ´
Ò»Ö¾Ô¸Ìì½ò´óѧ»¯Ñ§¹¤ÒÕרҵ£¨081702£©315·ÖÇóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ7È˻ظ´
302Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ6È˻ظ´
26²©Ê¿ÉêÇë
ÒѾÓÐ3È˻ظ´
268Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ3È˻ظ´
311Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ10È˻ظ´
±»ÎÒÑÔÖУºÐÂÄ£°å²»Ç¿µ÷¸ñʽÁË£¬¼Ùר¼Ò¿ªÊ¼¹Ü¸ñʽÁË
ÒѾÓÐ4È˻ظ´
» ±¾Ö÷ÌâÏà¹Ø¼ÛÖµÌùÍÆ¼ö£¬¶ÔÄúͬÑùÓаïÖú:
Ͷ¸åPLOS one ´óÐÞ£¬Éó¸åÈËÒªÇó²¹ÊµÑ飬²»²¹µÄ»°±»¾Ü¸ÅÂʶàÉÙ
ÒѾÓÐ12È˻ظ´
´óÐ޺󱻱༾ܵô£¬ÖØÍ¶»á»»Éó¸åÈËÂð£¿
ÒѾÓÐ13È˻ظ´
´óÐÞ·µ»Ø¿ì20Ì죬·¢ÏÖ״̬ÊÇÓÖÖØÐ·ÖÅäÁËÉó¸åÈË£¬ÊDz»ÊÇÒª±»¾ÜÁË£¿ìýìý£¬µ£ÐÄing
ÒѾÓÐ9È˻ظ´
ÂÛÎÄ´óÐÞºóÉó¸åÈËÈÏΪÎÒûÓÐÈÏÕæÐ޸ı»¾Ü£¬ÏëдÉêËßÐÅ£¬Ôõôд±È½ÏºÏÊÊ
ÒѾÓÐ5È˻ظ´
³õÉóÒâ¼ûÁ½¸öÉó¸åÈË£¬Ò»¸öÇ¿µ÷´´ÐÂÐÔ²»Ç¿£¬Ò»¸öÒªÇó´óÐÞ. ¸Ã ÔõÑù»Ø¸´°¡£¿ лл
ÒѾÓÐ39È˻ظ´
IOP´óÐÞºóÖØÍ¶ Éó¸åÈËÒ»ÖÜ·µ»ØÒâ¼û ÊDZ¯ÊÇϲ£¿
ÒѾÓÐ9È˻ظ´
Éó¸åÈË˵´óÐÞ£¬µ«ÊÇÂÛÎı»¾Ü£¬¸ø±à¼ÔÙ·¢ÓʼþÉêËßÓÐÓÃÂð 7.19 ¸üÐÂ
ÒѾÓÐ30È˻ظ´
ÓÐûÓÐÁ½¸öÉó¸åÈËÒ»¸ö¾Ü£¬Ò»¸ö´óÐÞ£¬È»ºó±à¼rejectµ«ÊÇ¿ÉÒÔresubmit
ÒѾÓÐ16È˻ظ´
´óÐÞʱ¶ÔÓ¢Óïд×÷×öÁËÏàÓ¦Ð޸ģ¬Ó¦¸ÃÈçºÎ»Ø¸´Éó¸åÈËÒâ¼û
ÒѾÓÐ4È˻ظ´
Á½Éó¸åÈ˸ø´óÐÞºóÖØÉ󣬸±Ö÷±àÈ´¸øÁ˸ö¾Ü¸å½áÂÛ£¬ÎÒ¸ÃÕ¦°ì£¿
ÒѾÓÐ34È˻ظ´
ͶSCI´óÐÞ£¬Éó¸åÈË2¸öͬÒâÒ»¸ö¾Ü¸å
ÒѾÓÐ18È˻ظ´
guershao
ÖÁ×ðľ³æ (Ö°Òµ×÷¼Ò)
- Ó¦Öú: 91 (³õÖÐÉú)
- ½ð±Ò: 17204.2
- É¢½ð: 1863
- ºì»¨: 10
- Ìû×Ó: 3246
- ÔÚÏß: 1201.4Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 711670
- ×¢²á: 2009-03-01
- רҵ: ¹ÜÀíѧÆäËûѧ¿Æ
¡¾´ð°¸¡¿Ó¦Öú»ØÌû
¡ï ¡ï ¡ï ¡ï ¡ï
¸Ðл²ÎÓ룬ӦÖúÖ¸Êý +1
avast2009: »ØÌûÖö¥ 2013-03-23 18:25:21
avast2009: ½ð±Ò+5, ¹ÄÀø¸ßÖÊÁ¿Ó¦Öú 2013-03-23 18:25:46
¸Ðл²ÎÓ룬ӦÖúÖ¸Êý +1
avast2009: »ØÌûÖö¥ 2013-03-23 18:25:21
avast2009: ½ð±Ò+5, ¹ÄÀø¸ßÖÊÁ¿Ó¦Öú 2013-03-23 18:25:46
|
1. Óï·¨ÐèÒª´óµÄÐ޸ģ¬ÕÒÀϰ塢ӢÓïºÃµÄÈË»òÕßÀÏÍâ°ïÄãÐÞ¸ÄÒ»ÏÂÓï·¨£¬ÆäʵֻҪÈÏÕæ¸Ä¹ýÒ»´ÎÖ®ºó£¬ÒÔºó¶¼²»´æÔÚÕâ¸öÎÊÌâÁË£» 2. ÎÄÕµĽṹ°²ÅŲ»ºÏÀí£¬ÒªÇ°ºóÓÐÂß¼£¬Ê×ÏÈÊÇÌá³öÎÊÌ⣬ȻºóÌá³öÑо¿¼ÙÉèµÈ... 3. ·½·¨·½Ãæ´æÔÚǷȱ£¬»òÕßÊÇûÓнâÊÍÇå³þµÄÎÊÌ⣬Ҫ½»´úÇå³þ£¬»òÕßÓÐÎÄÏ×½øÐÐ×ôÖ¤¡£ 4. ÈËÎÄÉç¿ÆµÄÂÛÎÄ£¬ÒªÉÏÉýµ½Õþ²ß²ãÃæ£¬¶Ô¹Ø×¢Ïà¹ØÎÊÌâ²ãÃæµÄÈËÌá³öÏà¹ØµÄÕþ²ß½¨Òé»òÕ߶Բߣ¬»òÕßÄãÊÇÑо¿µÄÉý»ª¡£ |

5Â¥2013-03-22 19:38:14
sunpingli
½ð³æ (СÓÐÃûÆø)
²»ÖªµÀ
- Ó¦Öú: 12 (СѧÉú)
- ½ð±Ò: 2780.7
- ºì»¨: 1
- Ìû×Ó: 234
- ÔÚÏß: 83Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 961460
- ×¢²á: 2010-03-04
- ÐÔ±ð: MM
- רҵ: ºôÎüϵͳ¼²²¡ÆäËû¿ÆÑ§ÎÊÌâ

3Â¥2013-03-22 19:06:06
happy617
гæ (ÖøÃûдÊÖ)
- Ó¦Öú: 59 (³õÖÐÉú)
- ½ð±Ò: 7682.1
- É¢½ð: 5787
- ºì»¨: 15
- Ìû×Ó: 2238
- ÔÚÏß: 690.8Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 1850867
- ×¢²á: 2012-06-07
- רҵ: ´´Ð¹ÜÀí
4Â¥2013-03-22 19:24:11
mikefallon
ľ³æ (СÓÐÃûÆø)
- Ó¦Öú: 103 (¸ßÖÐÉú)
- ½ð±Ò: 4126.3
- ºì»¨: 5
- Ìû×Ó: 271
- ÔÚÏß: 240.2Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 1446801
- ×¢²á: 2011-10-17
- רҵ: Áã¼þ³ÉÐÎÖÆÔì
¡¾´ð°¸¡¿Ó¦Öú»ØÌû
¸Ðл²ÎÓ룬ӦÖúÖ¸Êý +1
|
Éó¸åÈËдµÄÒѾ±È½ÏÃ÷È·ÁË£¬ÂÛÎÄÒªÌÖÂÛµÄÖ÷Ì⣬Ҳ¾ÍÊÇÎÄÕÂÄÚÈÝ»¹ÊDZȽϸÐÐËȤµÄ£¬µ«ÊÇÓ¢Óï±í´ï¡¢ÎÄÕ½ṹ¡¢¹æ·¶ÓÃÓͼ±í×éÖ¯¡¢Ö±µ½×îºó½áÂÛ·ÖÎö¶¼ÓÐÎÊÌâ¡£ ºÃºÃ¸Äһϰɣ¬¸ÄÍêÁËÕÒÒ»¸öÓ¢Óï´óÅ£ÔÙÖØµã¸Ä¸ÄÓ¢Óï£¬ÖØÐÂͶÕâ¸öÔÓÖ¾»òÕ߯äËûÔÓÖ¾£¬»¹ÊǺÜÓÐÏ£Íû·¢±íµÄ¡£ |
6Â¥2013-03-22 19:42:38













±ÏÒµÒªÑÓÆÚÁË¡£ ´ó¼Ò°ï¿´Ò»Ï¡£×Ðϸ»Ø¸´ÁËÉϸöÉó¸åÈ˵ÄÒâ¼û£¬ÔÏëûÎÊÌâµÄ£¬×î²»¿ÉÄܵÄÁÏÏëÈ´·¢ÉúÁË¡£
»Ø¸´´ËÂ¥
hql1974
20