 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| 5 | 1/1 | 返回列表 |
| 查看: 5905 | 回復: 12 | |||
| 當前只顯示滿足指定條件的回帖，點擊這里查看本話題的所有回帖 | |||
[交流]
ssci2區(qū)投稿現收到大修，請各位友友幫忙看看呀！ 已有7人參與
|
|||
|
兩月初投的ssci 6.2給回復了 7月14日前上傳文件。 第一次投稿啊，還是自己一個在做學術，沒有團隊，所以跪求友友們幫我看看給給意見��！ （第一次寫稿不一定圖片可以加進來，所以把審稿意見等文字版本發(fā)出來了 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的主要傾向是：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！主編的意思是能不能中呢？還有Referee: 1在說的black boxes 是啥意思？是在說我的數據論證不清晰么？還是在覺得我數據不真實呢？？ 球球了 幫我給點意見吧�。。�！ 比心 |
回復此樓» 猜你喜歡
求助
已經有4人回復
-
0805材料320求調劑
已經有3人回復
-
297求調劑
已經有11人回復
-
268求調劑
已經有9人回復
-
一志愿西安交通大學材料工程專業(yè) 282分求調劑
已經有10人回復
-
278求調劑
已經有7人回復
-
26考研一志愿中國石油大學(華東)305分求調劑
已經有5人回復
-
280求調劑
已經有9人回復
-
279求調劑
已經有5人回復
-
286求調劑
已經有5人回復
EmeraldTSS
禁言 (初入文壇)
★
小木蟲: 金幣+0.5, 給個紅包，謝謝回帖
小木蟲: 金幣+0.5, 給個紅包，謝謝回帖
|
本帖內容被屏蔽 |
7樓2022-06-10 10:41:44
1018415371
新蟲 (正式寫手)
- 應助: 0 (幼兒園)
- 金幣: 2134.5
- 散金: 2654
- 紅花: 2
- 帖子: 658
- 在線: 66.1小時
- 蟲號: 2881841
- 注冊: 2013-12-19
- 專業(yè): 自身免疫性疾病
2樓2022-06-10 08:36:25
SenX
金蟲 (正式寫手)
- 應助: 1 (幼兒園)
- 金幣: 1141.8
- 散金: 50
- 紅花: 1
- 帖子: 456
- 在線: 49.8小時
- 蟲號: 7696310
- 注冊: 2017-12-29
- 性別: GG
- 專業(yè): 遙感機理與方法
3樓2022-06-10 08:42:33
4樓2022-06-10 08:50:19
| 最具人氣熱帖推薦 [查看全部] | 作者 | 回/看 | 最后發(fā)表 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
[考研] 求助 +3 | 夢里的無言 2026-03-21 | 4/200 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
[考研] 一志愿西安交通大學材料工程專業(yè) 282分求調劑 +8 | 楓橋ZL 2026-03-18 | 10/500 |
|
|
[考研] 26考研一志愿中國石油大學(華東)305分求調劑 +5 | 嘉年新程 2026-03-15 | 5/250 |
|
|
|
[考研] 求調劑 +6 | Mqqqqqq 2026-03-19 | 6/300 |
|
|
|
[考研] 08工科 320總分 求調劑 +6 | 梨花珞晚風 2026-03-17 | 6/300 |
|
|
|
[考研] 265求調劑 +3 | Jack?k?y 2026-03-17 | 3/150 |
|
|
|
[考研]
 271材料工程求調劑
+8
|
.6lL 2026-03-18 | 8/400 |
|
|
|
[考研] 304求調劑 +6 | 曼殊2266 2026-03-18 | 6/300 |
|
|
|
[考研] 一志愿 西北大學 ，070300化學學碩，總分287，雙非一本，求調劑。 +4 | 晨昏線與星海 2026-03-19 | 4/200 |
|
|
|
[考研] 350求調劑 +5 | weudhdk 2026-03-19 | 5/250 |
|
|
|
[考研] 一志愿中南化學（0703）總分337求調劑 +8 | niko- 2026-03-19 | 9/450 |
|
|
|
[考研] A區(qū)線材料學調劑 +5 | 周周無極 2026-03-20 | 5/250 |
|
|
|
[考研] 一志愿西安交通大學 學碩 354求調劑211或者雙一流 +3 | 我想要讀研究生 2026-03-20 | 3/150 |
|
|
|
[考研] 085600材料與化工求調劑 +6 | 緒幸與子 2026-03-17 | 6/300 |
|
|
|
[考研] 311求調劑 +11 | 冬十三 2026-03-15 | 12/600 |
|
|
|
[考研] 302求調劑 +4 | 小賈同學123 2026-03-15 | 8/400 |
|
|
|
[論文投稿] 有沒有大佬發(fā)小論文能帶我個二作 +3 | 增銳漏人 2026-03-17 | 4/200 |
|
|
|
[考研] 283求調劑 +3 | 聽風就是雨； 2026-03-16 | 3/150 |
|
|
|
[考研] 326求調劑 +4 | 諾貝爾化學獎覬?/a> 2026-03-15 | 7/350 |
|
|
|
[考研] 288求調劑 +4 | 奇點0314 2026-03-14 | 4/200 |
|