早年为Journal of Information Science审稿的一则审稿意见
武夷山
2008年5月6日
In considering the paper, please could you consider the following questions:
Does the paper argue an interesting case well?
----------------------------------------------
Basically It argues well, but there is some wrong treatment of data.
Is it a new and original contribution?
--------------------------------------
Yes.
Is any significant argumentation or evidence missing from the paper?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2.1, the author only gave objective reasons for aging of network information. In fact, subjective reasons are also significant. For instance, in Web environment in comparison with traditional media such as books, readers usually have much shorter attention span, are less patient, and give undue attention to "new" things. Such subjective and psychological factors also exacerbate the aging of information. I hope that authors add further discussion on this dimension.
Are the methods sound and adequately described? (scientifically and
statistically)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
TheHorizontal axis of Figure 2 is from earlier year to more recent year, which is a wrong arrangement, while the arrangement in Fig 3 is right. I guess they got the years reversed in Fig 2. If Fig 2 is correct, then this figure will argue against the university of aging of network information.
Are the conclusions and interpretations sound and justified by the data?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes and no.
For online readers, download data is a better evidence of utility than citation. Pitiful that they failed to count download data.
It is better to introduce lifecycle curve for traditional media first, and see how the regularity for the lifecycle of web information is different from the former. In particular, readers are too natural to be only interested in recent news items, so if there is no comparison with the lifecycle for printed media, the conclusion would not be solid.
Is the title accurate and succinct?
Yes.
Is the abstract sufficiently informative?
-----------------------------------------
Yes.
Are the references relevant and sufficient?
Yes.
Could the paper be shortened without loss of clarity and important content?
No.
PS. In several places, the author says “in the mass. I guess they really mean “in math” or “in mathematical form”.
Overall review: __5____
0: republished article (should be rejected out of hand)
1: very weak paper (this should never be accepted)
2: strong reject (little value, a shame to accept)
3: recommend rejection (but happy for other referees to disagree)
4: needs major revision before resubmission
5: needs minor revision before acceptance
6: recommend acceptance as is (but happy for other referees to disagree)
7: strong accept(would be a shame to reject)
8: exceptional paper (should be published quickly)
9: brilliant paper (must be published without delay)
Technical quality: 3
0: very low
1: low
2: ok
3: good
4: very good
Editorial quality: _2_____
0: very poorly written
1: poorly written
2: ok
3: well written
4: very well written
Suitability: 4____
0: well outside the scope of JIS
1: at the limits of JIS' scope
2: beneficial extension to JIS scope
3: well within JIS scope
4: core to JIS scope
转载本文请联系原作者获取授权，同时请注明本文来自武夷山科学网博客。
链接地址：https://wap.sciencenet.cn/blog-1557-1366045.html?mobile=1
收藏
