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 » 交流 » SCI大修意见没有很好理解，请高手帮忙解释，并给出建议
11/1返回列表
查看: 292  |  回复: 0
只看楼主 @他人 存档 新回复提醒 (忽略) 收藏    在APP中查看

fly828

木虫 (小有名气)

[求助] SCI大修意见没有很好理解，请高手帮忙解释，并给出建议

审稿人意见：

1. I see no reference to permission to perform these experiments from an Ethics Committee, or evidence that the volunteers signed appropriate consent forms.

2. Whereas the statistics associated with Tables 6-9 are presented, there still seems to be no statistical backing to support the statements made regarding Tables 2-5. I have already stated that advice on this will be required, and the comments, below, are based on those made regarding the first version of your paper:
"I think you need to get expert advice regarding the analysis of your data. As I understand the problem, you have several outcome measures (objective and subjective estimates of sleep). You then have several factors (shown in Table 1) and you are investigating if these influence sleep.
I think you need to get advice regarding the groups to compare (e.g. thickness of material and/or firmness and/or hysteriesis and/or spring type) rather than giving separate results for all 18 mattresses. The analysis is likely to be some form of ANOVA or regression analysis.
I note that you performed regression analyses in Section 3.2 (Tables 6-9), but you seem to have looked at the predictors separately. I wonder if some form of multiple regression analysis might be better here?"

我对这两个问题没有很好理解，还请高手帮忙！谢谢
回复此楼

» 猜你喜欢
1楼 2014-06-21 20:50:50
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

智能机器人

Robot (super robot)

我们都爱小木虫

找到一些相关的精华帖子，希望有用哦~

科研从小木虫开始，人人为我，我为人人
相关版块跳转 我要订阅楼主 fly828 的主题更新
11/1返回列表
普通表情 龙 兔 虎 猫
信息提示
关闭
请填处理意见
关闭