 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| 7 | 1/1 | 返回列表 |
| 查看: 2967 | 回復(fù): 6 | |||
zhuzi948銀蟲 (初入文壇)
|
[交流]
Research on Social Work Practice【SSCI】投稿經(jīng)驗 已有2人參與
|
|
2012年2月24日正式提交投稿 2012年4月6日Major revision 通過編輯的郵件可知，兩位reviewer的意見都是recommend and major revision，最后主編給出的意見就是conditional accepted after revision。 審稿人給的建議相當(dāng)詳細(xì)，分別針對各個部分給出了約40個審稿意見。 但是要求修回的時間只有30天，據(jù)主編說發(fā)表周期較短，因此返修時間也很短。 2012年4月11日修改完畢，交給通訊作者審閱，他覺得沒問題后即可提交。 目前結(jié)果未知~有了以后及時更新唄~~如果需要審稿建議，我也可以貼上來，留言即可 [ Last edited by seapass on 2012-4-14 at 14:49 ] |
回復(fù)此樓» 本帖已獲得的紅花（最新10朵）
» 猜你喜歡
材料求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有11人回復(fù)
-
【求調(diào)劑】新能源材料本科，一志愿211，初試321
已經(jīng)有4人回復(fù)
-
336求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有5人回復(fù)
-
材料求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有8人回復(fù)
-
材料工程322分
已經(jīng)有7人回復(fù)
-
材料考研調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有5人回復(fù)
-
生物學(xué)308分求調(diào)劑（一志愿華東師大）
已經(jīng)有4人回復(fù)
-
求生物學(xué)調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有8人回復(fù)
-
08生物與醫(yī)藥專碩初試346找調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有6人回復(fù)
-
生物學(xué)327，求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有6人回復(fù)
» 本主題相關(guān)價值貼推薦，對您同樣有幫助:
- Macrocyclic Chemistry: New Research Developments
已經(jīng)有145人回復(fù)
dao124
木蟲 (小有名氣)
- 應(yīng)助: 0 (幼兒園)
- 金幣: 2655.3
- 帖子: 53
- 在線: 279小時
- 蟲號: 824414
- 注冊: 2009-08-08
- 專業(yè): 金融學(xué)
2樓2012-04-14 16:43:03
zhuzi948
銀蟲 (初入文壇)
- 應(yīng)助: 0 (幼兒園)
- 金幣: 385.3
- 散金: 50
- 帖子: 30
- 在線: 26.7小時
- 蟲號: 1197931
- 注冊: 2011-01-30
- 性別: GG
- 專業(yè): 社會學(xué)
★ ★ ★
avast2009: 金幣+3, 鼓勵交流 2012-04-17 13:31:57
avast2009: 金幣+3, 鼓勵交流 2012-04-17 13:31:57
|
這是社會工作領(lǐng)域的期刊啊，具體信息可以搜一下！我本人是學(xué)臨床心理學(xué)的，跟社會工作實踐實際上是有很大關(guān)系的。 寫作經(jīng)驗跟寫國內(nèi)的文章差不多，簡潔明了，方法正確就是了。不過選題很重要啦~ 我是修訂一個量表，VIA-IS，目前是社會科學(xué)領(lǐng)域的大熱門！已經(jīng)有7-9個不同國家給出了其信效度報告，我們這個研究在中國文化下給出了一個比較詳細(xì)的報告，同時試圖摸索出如何保證測量等價性的一些操作手段。 等這篇完善后，我們還繼續(xù)對其心理測量學(xué)特征進行更明確的報告，這估計就是下一篇的主題了！ |
» 本帖已獲得的紅花（最新10朵）
3樓2012-04-14 19:56:53
dao124
木蟲 (小有名氣)
- 應(yīng)助: 0 (幼兒園)
- 金幣: 2655.3
- 帖子: 53
- 在線: 279小時
- 蟲號: 824414
- 注冊: 2009-08-08
- 專業(yè): 金融學(xué)
4樓2012-04-17 13:28:52
zhuzi948
銀蟲 (初入文壇)
- 應(yīng)助: 0 (幼兒園)
- 金幣: 385.3
- 散金: 50
- 帖子: 30
- 在線: 26.7小時
- 蟲號: 1197931
- 注冊: 2011-01-30
- 性別: GG
- 專業(yè): 社會學(xué)
★ ★ ★ ★ ★
avast2009: 金幣+5, 鼓勵交流 2012-04-27 08:44:55
avast2009: 金幣+5, 鼓勵交流 2012-04-27 08:44:55
|
把comment貼上來，供大家考評啊，看看有沒有戲！ Editor's Notes: Please make sure that the references are in correct APA style. For example, the name of the journal in the Biswas reference is not italicized, and it should be. Remove the issue number from all references to articles appearing in journal's paginated by year (which is most of them). Begin the list of references on a new page. Insert an APA-style header and page number on every page. Reviewer: 1 (Recommended a Major Revision) The paper “Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the Values in Action Inventory” was a good attempt to show the reliabilities and validities of the short-version of VIA, and its applicability in Chinese cultural settings. Further revisions are needed before it is recommended for publication. Introduction (1) More description of the original VIA and its theoretical framework is needed, in order to let the readers know the background, and can compare how the short-version developed in this study is compatible with the original one. (2) On p.4, what does “(re Table 1)” stand for? (3) The authors argued that it is important to examine the factorial invariance of the virtue structure in different cultures. Please explain why it is important. Actually, different structures were found in existing research and the authors’ research, what is your explanation to this phenomenon? (4) More arguments are needed to support why it is important to test the Chinese version of VIA. Although the authors have given some items to illustrate there may be some cultural differences, it seems that these are the findings / discussion of your research. In the introduction, a general review of the cultural differences related to character strengths or interpretations of character strengths is needed. Further strengthening of your arguments for research in examining the functional equivalence of VIA is needed. (5) “Item 15 of the VIA-IS (“I have no trouble eating healthy foods”) may not be suitable for those who do not have a clear concept of “healthy food”. Obviously it is not related to cultural differences, but related to the respondents’ educational background / knowledge. However, this situation is common when collecting data through questionnaires, in which respondents are required to fill in answers based on their subjective perceptions and knowledge. Method (1) Please describe the sampling method of the interview participants, and the mean age (SD) of the interviewed participants. (2) I wonder there should be a Phase 3 or not, as what mentioned in Phase 3 was how the data collected in Phase 1 was analyzed. Please consider moving this section under Phase 1 or data analysis. (3) Materials: please mention the no. of items in the VIA. (4) Please explain the purposes of asking those questions in the interviews. E.g. for checking the content validity of the VIA or so. (5) Data analysis, “Items not culturally appropriate would be excluded so that the final number of items would be less than 240.” Please clarify what is meant by “not cultural appropriate”. Results (1) Why there are results of test-retest reliabilities? It seems that the authors had not mentioned any retest in the method section. Discussion (1) Discussion is too thin, please discuss your research findings with reference to your research aims (i.e. (1) examine if the 24 strengths could be grouped into the same 6 virtues proposed by Peterson and Seligman (2004), and (2) to examine the appropriateness and functional equivalence of the VIA-IS items in measuring the corresponding character strengths among the Chinese) (2) It appears that the selection of items for the short-version of VIA was mainly statistically driven. Actually, decisions should also be theoretically driven. Please elaborate why claiming the resultant VIA as “a theoretically meaningful three-factor of virtue”. Also, do you think the short version in compatible to the original one? Reviewer: 2 (Recommended a Major Revision) As the Values in Action Inventory is a popular scale used in social sciences, this study is critical in assessing the psychometric properties of the scale in Chinese context so that it can be used in cross-cultural psychology. However, the reviewer has raised some queries in this manuscript: 1. The Chinese cultural foundation of the scale a. Please elaborate the various writings of philosophers (P.3). b. Chinese culture is a solid tradition with different domains and conceptual frameworks. However, the study’s treatment to Chinese culture is very fragmented. The authors inspect item by item (P.4) without reference to a particular Chinese cultural foundation. It is imprudent and without conceptual framework. Even if the authors argue that there are many Chinese traditions, they can delineate several main lines of arguments so that the values can be conceptualized, e.g. Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism, Mohism. The treatment of items is very crude and random. 2. Participants and procedures a. The division of phases is puzzled. Phase 1 is only data collection “without” data analysis. Please re-phrase more carefully. b. The data analysis procedures and the subsequence internal sequences within Phase 3 are not clear. c. The item loading cut-off of .60 is very high. It also implies that double loading occurs very seriously. Please clarify. d. The decision of removing items and domains (Strengths) is not clear. Please provide the rotated factor matrix so that the readers can also inspect the factor loading. e. Why is it necessary to retain the same number of items per strength? Is it possible that the removal of items for some strengths is owing to retain the same number of items. f. For Phase 2, please clarify the choice of undergraduate students instead of expert panels. g. The decision of adopting a particular EFA and CFA is not discussed, not to mention the particular rotation and the software performing CFA. 3. Results a. Authors perform an EFA first for 240 items. Authors can consider item removal by means of gross item-item or item-total reliability, and content validity. b. The results of Phase 2 are very crude. Please explain the decision making of the 240 items, especially the removal of 103 items and 27 items (P.8) item by item. c. If authors remove so many items, how far authors claim authors are using the same scale as before? It is also a matter of cross-cultural comparison. I would suggest authors giving a new name to the scale, adding some cultural-relevant items. Now authors are restrained by the original factor solution, removing items and having another factor solution. The new scale is not the old scale anymore. d. After authors have removed so many items, is the original factor, i.e. strength valid? The most puzzling procedure is that authors still calculate the reliability of original strengths for the new 96-item data set. But then afterwards authors remove some strengths altogether. In this scale, sometimes authors remove items and sometimes authors remove the strengths (with the items) altogether. As authors say in the text, some items may belong to different domains for Chinese. If authors remove the whole strengths (P.9), some removed items may be valid for other strengths. e. The authors use much space in describing removing items and keeping the strengths. Then the authors adopt new factor solution. The EFA and CFA processes for the new scales are trivial. f. (P.10) Please justify the remarks that the correlation of .64 implies independent constructs. g. For the CFA, please propose hypothesized models for comparison. Indeed the RMSEA is excellent. However, is it possible that there are some better factor solutions? The authors have to develop and dispute alternative hypothesized models. Please refer to other journals of CFA. h. There are not other validity checks in this study, e.g. criterion-related validity and construct validity. The psychometric properties of the scale are afterall not solid. 4. Discussion a. As the scale is about Chinese, the scale should discuss the relevance of Chinese culture to this scale. b. Please spell out relevant social work implications of your study. c. It is interesting that the authors have called out a new virtue at the end of the discussion. They should consider the virtue at the beginning of the scale construction process. d. What are the comparisons of the current findings with other published psychometric properties of this popular scale? |
5樓2012-04-26 23:43:03
zhuzi948
銀蟲 (初入文壇)
- 應(yīng)助: 0 (幼兒園)
- 金幣: 385.3
- 散金: 50
- 帖子: 30
- 在線: 26.7小時
- 蟲號: 1197931
- 注冊: 2011-01-30
- 性別: GG
- 專業(yè): 社會學(xué)
6樓2012-05-08 14:03:51
送鮮花一朵
 |
7樓2012-05-08 16:13:10
相關(guān)版塊跳轉(zhuǎn)
我要訂閱樓主 zhuzi948 的主題更新
| 7 | 1/1 | 返回列表 |
| 最具人氣熱帖推薦 [查看全部] | 作者 | 回/看 | 最后發(fā)表 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
[考研] 366求調(diào)劑一志愿東北大學(xué) +3 | 運氣來得若有似?/a> 2026-04-02 | 3/150 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
[考研] 材料調(diào)劑 +12 | 一樣YWY 2026-04-01 | 12/600 |
|
|
|
[考研] 11408 321分求調(diào)劑 +3 | huchun12138 2026-03-30 | 4/200 |
|
|
|
[考研] 265求調(diào)劑 +3 | 梁梁校校 2026-04-01 | 3/150 |
|
|
|
[考研] 266求調(diào)劑 +7 | 陽陽哇塞 2026-04-01 | 7/350 |
|
|
|
[考研] 285求調(diào)劑 +7 | AZMK 2026-03-30 | 13/650 |
|
|
|
[論文投稿]
chinese chemical letters英文版投稿求助
 120+4
|
Yishengeryi 2026-03-30 | 5/250 |
|
|
|
[考研] 085410人工智能 初試316分 求調(diào)劑 +3 | 殘星拂曙 2026-03-31 | 3/150 |
|
|
|
[考研] 土木304求調(diào)劑 +5 | 兔突突突， 2026-03-31 | 6/300 |
|
|
|
[考研] 318求調(diào)劑 +3 | 篤行致遠(yuǎn). 2026-03-31 | 3/150 |
|
|
|
[考研] 336材料求調(diào)劑 +10 | 陳瀅瑩 2026-03-26 | 12/600 |
|
|
|
[基金申請] 面上5B能上會嗎？ +8 | redcom 2026-03-29 | 8/400 |
|
|
|
[考研] 354求調(diào)劑 +3 | lxb598 2026-03-31 | 4/200 |
|
|
|
[考研] 274求調(diào)劑 +6 | xiao愛同學(xué) 2026-03-30 | 6/300 |
|
|
|
[考研] 哈爾濱工業(yè)大學(xué)材料與化工專碩378求調(diào)劑 +3 | 塔比烏斯 2026-03-30 | 3/150 |
|
|
|
[考研] 285求調(diào)劑 +6 | AZMK 2026-03-29 | 9/450 |
|
|
|
[考研] 一志愿南開大學(xué)0710生物學(xué)359求調(diào)劑 +5 | 兔兔兔111223314 2026-03-29 | 7/350 |
|
|
|
[考研] 340求調(diào)劑 +6 | Amber00 2026-03-26 | 6/300 |
|
|
|
[考研] 285求調(diào)劑 +4 | AZMK 2026-03-27 | 7/350 |
|
|
|
[考研] 調(diào)劑 +3 | 李嘉圖·S·路 2026-03-27 | 3/150 |
|