英文論文寫作及投稿技巧講座-資料下載頁
2025-05-02 01:37本頁面
【正文】 ? Inplete, insufficient information in abstract. ? Title not representative of the study. . On equal scientific merit, a badly written article will have less chance of being accepted. ? Difficult to read, to follow and to understand ? Too long ? Wrong or inaccurate terms ? Information in the wrong section, poor anization ? Unedited, hasty writing, typographical errors ? Grammatical errors ? Inappropriate language ? Abbreviations not spelled out REASONS REVIEWERS ACCEPT MANUSCRIPTS ? Important, timely, relevant, critical, prevalent problem ? Wellwritten manuscript (clear, straightforward, easy to follow, logical), Clear rationale, Clear hypotheses ? Thoughtful, focused, uptodate review of the literature ? Welldesigned study (appropriate, rigorous, prehensive , novel mix of designs) ? Sample size sufficiently large. Novel, unique approach to data analysis. Integration of multiple statistical methods ? Practical, useful implications ? Interpretation took into account the limitations of the study ? Problem well stated, alternative explanations presented, reflects scientific honesty Talking back to reviewers: the gentle art of resubmission ? Do not submit if you do not intend to resubmit. I never expect to be funded on the first submission of a grant. Even acplished researchers do not get their work published on the first submission. ? Do they make mistakes? Do they miss important points? Do they have their own ego problems? But you are much better off assuming they are sincerely interested in helping you. When you talk back to them, do it gently. ? Make a list of EVERY point that the reviewers made and categorize them into those that are easily changed, those that will demand a major rethinking, those requiring major additional work, and those you disagree with. ? When you are ready, write an explanation of how you addressed EVERY point that the reviewers raised. For resubmission to the same journals, this explanation should be in your letter to the editor. For those points you disagree with, give your rationale for not following the reviewers39。 advice. If you have performed additional pilot work, be sure to include this. Reviewers like to know that you are pursuing your research and not just sitting on your hands waiting for funding. ? Finally, include in your response a note of gratitude for the reviewers39。 ideas. Try to make this sincere.
畢業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)相關(guān)推薦
鄂ICP備17016276號(hào)-1