24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

【悬赏金币】回答本帖问题，作者抵制拖延症将赠送您 25 个金币

抵制拖延症

新虫 (初入文坛)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 143.5
散金: 510
红花: 1
帖子: 25
在线: 124.1小时
虫号: 1788292
注册: 2012-05-01
专业: 沉积学和盆地动力学

[求助] 一区SCI审稿意见求助，null and alternative hypotheses？怎样组织文章结构？挠破头了已有1人参与

年初投了一篇一区sci期刊，为学科顶级期刊，经过六个月的审稿，得到了两份意见。其中一个审稿人比较nice，意见非常positive；另一个审稿人则对文章态度完全不一样，提出了非常严苛的审稿意见（当然，我很感激他的1500 words的comments和pdf上密密麻麻的标注）。一些小的毛病修改完以后，对其在审稿意见中提出的一个primary shortcoming现在无所适从了，请大家帮忙分析分析。。。由于是个文章结构性的问题，我把具体的细节内容删掉了，这样虫友们应该都能看懂。。。

The authors state that the objectives of the paper are to: XXX These are good objectives, that if met will make a useful contribution to the scientific literature. However, as presented, the paper falls short in meeting these objectives.
To begin with, the paper would be improved if the authors used their survey of the literature in the introduction, to specifically define the important unresolved scientific questions that the objectives of their research will address. In order to address the scientific question and address their objectives, the authors should then state null and alternative hypotheses that they will address in the paper and then describe a research/experiment plan that will then allow them to test these hypotheses. As the paper is currently written, it is basically a description of XXX XXX XXX. The description is then followed by some general speculation about relationships among changes XXX XXX XXX. I believe that if they more specifically define the research questions and then use this to define null and alternative hypotheses that they then specifically test, by specifically defining how the XXX XXX XXX, and then compare the results of their analyses to intervals during which they can control which variables are more dominant, the paper will make a much more significant contribution to the scientific literature.
There are already too many geoscience papers in which people provide descriptions of XXX XXX XXX and then provide some general speculation about what the cause of the variation. Our science has evolved beyond the point of general exploratory research. There is now a pretty good literature base available on the results of investigations XXX XXX XXX. There needs to be more integration of the results of these types of investigations with the observations from investigations of the ancient record so that we can determine whether these XXX XXX XXX analogs actually provide realistic depictions of XXX XXX XXX. If they work, great, but if there is a disconnect between the these analogs, then we have to re-evaluate the premises and assumptions on which these models are based and then do more experiments. This is the only way that our science can evolve and develop a larger predictive capability.
There is a huge opportunity for the authors of this manuscript to make a significant contribution in this area, once they approach their investigation from more of an experimental perspective and less as a qualitative description of a system. I find the issues described above as a primary shortcoming of the manuscript and as a reason that the manuscript should not be published until significant revisions are made to address this shortcoming.

其余为小毛病，改起来难度不大。

审稿人多次提及要提出假说null and alternative hypotheses，然后证明假说，这应该是怎样的文章结构啊？

哎，这个感觉跟之前三区sci的感觉真是完全不同，严苛至极啊，上面只是不到一半的comment。另外，这个审稿人既然花了这么大的力气帮我修改，会不会对我的文章还是有些兴趣的？有没有虫友遇到帮你修改了半天又毙掉的情况？

请虫友们帮忙分析分析。。。感激涕零啊

回复此楼