应《网络安全法》要求，自2017年10月1日起，未进行实名认证将不得使用互联网跟帖服务。为保障您的帐号能够正常使用，请尽快对帐号进行手机号验证，感谢您的理解与支持！

24小时热门版块排行榜    

小木虫论坛-学术科研互动平台 » 学术交流区 » 论文投稿 » 投稿求助 » 一审回复邮件，major revision的疑问？
51/1返回列表
查看: 2310  |  回复: 6
只看楼主 @他人 存档 新回复提醒 (忽略) 收藏    在APP中查看
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

clara7368

铁虫 (小有名气)

[求助] 一审回复邮件，major revision的疑问？

本人投稿一篇SSCI，3月投的，一审还挺快，今天收到邮件，让我大修，大概看了两个审稿人的意见，一个审稿人几乎让我把方法的部分重写，很头疼...；另一个审稿人很友善，基本让我小修。。。
   另外，责编后来加了一句话，如下：
   Please note that there is NO guarantee for your revised manuscript to be accepted for publication. If your revised manuscript does not FULLY address the reviewers' and editor's comments, it will be rejected. Only in EXCEPTIONAL cases will a second revision be allowed.
    这个是什么意思？是修改后再送审的几率很小吗？也就是说我大修之后很可能连二审的机会都很小，发表的几率就更小了？
    如果这样，我都不想改了，改投它刊算了？
     请各位童鞋给点意见啊，谢谢！

(附审稿意见)


COMMENTS FOR THE AUTHOR:

Reviewer #1: There is no doubt that the paper will generate a good number of interesting and valuable implications to school management specifically on matters that relate to access and equity in education. To ensure that the paper assumes its merit in both substance and form, may I suggest that the following pointers be adequately addressed by the researchers.

1.  While the introduction provides a succinct description of the current trends and issues raised by scholars in the field, I suggest that toward the end of it, the authors provide a paragraph that details the unique benefits that may accrue from the conduct of this scholarly and empirical investigation.  Specifically, pinpoint the contributions of the paper to educational management practice and policy.
2.  I strongly suggest that a section for the theoretical underpinning of the paper be provided.  This is vital in justifying the main argument of the paper.
3.  I also would like to suggest that a section on Literature Review and Hypotheses Development be substantially presented.  Have a separate synthesis of relevant literature relative to the following variables:  parental characteristics, family situation, school accessibility and educational quality.  Toward the end of each review, highlight the argument that the research wishes to advance in the form of H1, H2, H3, H4...
4. Kindly rehash the methods section by having a clear-cut segmentation of the following:  design, subjects and study site, data measures, data collection procedure, data analysis.
5. Separate the results from the discussion part.  See to it that a substantial number of literature culled from ISI journals including the ones of TAPER be cross-referenced in the discussion section and provide also some bold attempt and implications to management practice and policy.
6.  Kindly remove the doi information for references beyond 2012. This only applies for articles that are still in press.
7.  Kindly have the paper edited by a native speaker of English.

Looking forward to receiving the revised copy of this promising paper.



Reviewer #2: 1. Abstract is concise and clear, however, the author needs to include the methodology (number of participants, data analysis….) in 1 or 2 short sentences describing how data is gathered and analyzed.
2. Basically, the results and arguments of the paper are well represented. What concerns me is that whether the merging of school is more efficient in the long run or is only a short-term solution. Could the suggested policy be applied to similar situations in other countries? Is SMR only an issue in China? The author needs to provide more information.
3. Does the survey include students' information, such as their performance and grades? Efficiency models can be developed using the existing school factors and students' information.
4. In sum, the study seems to be a fine study and has provided some important findings. However, the conclusion part of the paper should be tightened to indicate the major findings and highlight what the paper has achieved.

[ Last edited by clara7368 on 2013-5-1 at 12:18 ]
回复此楼

» 猜你喜欢

» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
1楼 2013-05-01 11:48:04
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

nono2009

超级版主 (文学泰斗)

No gains, no pains.

优秀区长优秀区长优秀区长优秀区长优秀版主

【答案】应助回帖

★ ★ ★ ★ ★
感谢参与，应助指数 +1
clara7368: 金币+5, ★有帮助, 谢谢！ 2013-05-01 13:29:07
Please note that there is NO guarantee for your revised manuscript to be accepted for publication. If your revised manuscript does not FULLY address the reviewers' and editor's comments, it will be rejected. Only in EXCEPTIONAL cases will a second revision be allowed.
你修改的论文能否录用取决于你是否很好地解决了审稿人和编辑提出的问题。就是这个意思，挺正常的。
赞一下 回复此楼
4楼2013-05-01 13:18:10
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
查看全部 7 个回答

goslar

木虫 (职业作家)

我不再应助!

【答案】应助回帖

感谢参与，应助指数 +1
意思是楼主的修改要全面回应 editor 和 reviewers 的提问和要求, 如果没有达到, 你的文章有可能被拒.
Editor 也提到二审的机会一般很小, 所以大修完是直接接受或是直接拒掉.
好好修改吧.
赞一下(1人) 回复此楼
无故被警告,非常失望,我不再应助!
3楼2013-05-01 12:58:03
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

clara7368

铁虫 (小有名气)
引用回帖:
3楼: Originally posted by goslar at 2013-05-01 12:58:03
意思是楼主的修改要全面回应 editor 和 reviewers 的提问和要求, 如果没有达到, 你的文章有可能被拒.
Editor 也提到二审的机会一般很小, 所以大修完是直接接受或是直接拒掉.
好好修改吧.

谢谢！哎，我觉得很有压力啊，大家这种情况多吗，我上次一篇文章（其他期刊）是大修后又找了一位审稿人决定，为什么这个二审的机会小呢，是因为文章的问题还是这个杂志就这个特点？
赞一下 回复此楼
5楼2013-05-01 13:31:26
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

goslar

木虫 (职业作家)

我不再应助!
引用回帖:
5楼: Originally posted by clara7368 at 2013-05-01 13:31:26
谢谢！哎，我觉得很有压力啊，大家这种情况多吗，我上次一篇文章（其他期刊）是大修后又找了一位审稿人决定，为什么这个二审的机会小呢，是因为文章的问题还是这个杂志就这个特点？...

不同的杂志有不同的习惯
赞一下 回复此楼

» 本帖已获得的红花（最新10朵）

clara7368
无故被警告,非常失望,我不再应助!
6楼2013-05-01 13:33:41
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
查看全部 7 个回答
普通表情 龙 兔 虎 猫
信息提示
关闭
请填处理意见
关闭