| 查看: 2494 | 回复: 12 | |||
| 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 | |||
[交流]
ssci2区投稿现收到大修，请各位友友帮忙看看呀！已有7人参与
|
|||
|
两月初投的ssci 6.2给回复了 7月14日前上传文件。 第一次投稿啊，还是自己一个在做学术，没有团队，所以跪求友友们帮我看看给给意见！！ （第一次写稿不一定图片可以加进来，所以把审稿意见等文字版本发出来了 Referee: 1 Comments to the Author This manuscript studies the impact of two forms of government innovation assistance programs - innovation subsidies and tax refunds - on the R&D production of Chinese pharmaceutical companies. This is a very interesting research topic for us. The study tests a number of hypotheses and draws conclusions through quantitative analysis. However, I would like to see more concrete raw data on the quantitative analysis. Otherwise, I do not find it very convincing. I would also like to see a specific discussion of the differences from previous studies. I believe the paper will be even better if you do so. More specifically, I am worried about the following points. (1) The authors present many hypotheses which are H1a, H1b, H2a, H2b, H3a, H3b, H4a, and H4b and analyze them quantitatively. The variable definitions and descriptive statistics are listed in Table1 and Table2 and the regression results for each model are shown the Table 3, Table 4, Table 5, Table 6, and Table 7. These results are then used to test the hypotheses and draw conclusions. However, the actual contents of Table1 and Table2 are black boxes, and there is no way to verify them. Also, there seems to be no explanation of the model from 1 to 4. (2) Also, regarding the INPI that means the total number of patents in Table 1, the results are not compared and discussed with those of Cappelen et al. (2012) and Moretti and Wilson (2014), which are cited as previous studies. There is no crucial discussion of how the current results in China differ from the results in those other countries and also the reason why in this manuscript. I cannot make an accurate judgment because I lack the materials to make a solid decision. Referee: 2 Comments to the Author Dear Author(s), Overall paper is very well written and meets the required standards. However, a few suggestions are put forward to make its worth reading. 1. Abstract: A paragraph on methodology can make it a comprehensive abstract. 2. Literature review should be updated with a few recent papers i.e. 2020-21 3. Methodology: Page 09, line 36, 'Special Treatment (ST*) need to be defined in comprehensive way for the readers. 4. Moderator: page 11, The author(s) should clearly explain the time line and technique used to collect the primary data. 5. VIF threshold reference is missing. Author(s) may consider to provide even conservative reference due to given results. 6. It was observed that Author(s) have used different styles of result reporting, it may be uniformed with providing beta value and p-values i.e. page 17, line 55-60 7. Discussion and Conclusion: Author(s) must add some references in (Point-2) to strengthen the discussion part as provided in the same section i.e. (1 and 3) 8. Page 30, line 47, I guess it must be competitiveness rather than 'competitive' 9. In my opinion, a separate section on limitations and future research directions can make study worth reading. Editor的主要倾向是：You will see that although the referees find some merit in the paper it is required that substantial revisions be done before we can consider it further. Nevertheless, we do hope that you will be able to undertake the additional work on the paper and look forward to receiving a revised manuscript in due course. 很惶恐！主编的意思是能不能中呢？还有Referee: 1在说的black boxes 是啥意思？是在说我的数据论证不清晰么？还是在觉得我数据不真实呢？？ 球球了 帮我给点意见吧！！！！ 比心 |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
南林海归博士首聘期 没拿到国自然，被降级后自杀
已经有22人回复
-
12个本子最多让给1a2b
已经有8人回复
-
网传南京林业大学加拿大博士首聘期不合格，自杀
已经有26人回复
-
有博导缺学生吗，我可以当牛做马
已经有33人回复
-
信息口青基送审了吗
已经有10人回复
-
或许不关于爱情的
已经有67人回复
-
中文投稿
已经有4人回复
-
南京林业大学老师首聘期考核不过，服药自杀
已经有20人回复
-
面上项目代表作必须有通讯作者文章吗？
已经有36人回复
-
评审规则突发奇想
已经有12人回复
5楼2022-06-10 09:41:22
10