武夷山分享 http://blog.sciencenet.cn/u/Wuyishan 中国科学技术发展战略研究院研究员;南京大学信息管理系博导

博文

英文论文评审意见汇总(9)

已有 808 次阅读 2021-11-18 06:38 |个人分类:科学计量学研究|系统分类:观点评述

英文论文评审意见汇总(9)

武夷山

 

第一则

2009年3月25日

  

1. Just because HistCite is a young tool, the trial application of this tool is meaningful for scientometrics field as well as for the improvement of HistCite.


2. Citation process is both rational and stochastic. The current work actually assumes an entirely rational citation process. However, there are always a lot of “noises” in referenced literature. I suggest that the author make a short discussion on such noises and their impact on the analysis results of the paper.


3. There is so--called Sleeping Beauty phenomenon in scientometrics. Does the current algorithm help explain such phenomenon or not? I also expect a bit discussion on this.

 

    第二则

2012年8月7日


1.  It is obvious that this version was translated from a Chinese manuscript, but the main translator is not familiar with our field at all, so that even WENXIAN JILIANGXIE (Chinese translation of “bibliometrics”) was translated as “literature metrologiest”, an absurd error.

 

2.  The authors do not seem clear about their purpose for this paper: are they trying to explore some new analysis approaches, or are they trying to find some clues about how to conduct research in Antarctic in particular, and earth system science in general. I suggest that they focus on methodology aspect and re-organize the manuscript, so the analysis around Antarctic is merely a test about the validity of proposed approaches.

 

3.  I do not find any of the authors being geologist. But for such a fine-grained field as Antarctic study, you just cannot sure about the correctness of retrieval process and retrieval results. For instance, the authors sometimes add “glacier” as a new subject word to a paper. How can they safely argue about this act if the original author did not give “glacier” as key word? At least they should have consulted an geological expert throughout the process.

 

4.  There are too many linguistic errors. Here are just a few examples:

--when “For instance” should be used, they put “such as”;

--“is connect” appears a few times. It should be expressed as “is connected”;

--“they are remain” should be “they remain”;

--“This paper collect” should be “This paper collects…”, etc.

 

    I suggest that the authors seek help from a professional language service company, or at least from a native English speaker who happens also to know both bibliometrics and a little geology.    

 

第三则

2014年10月18日  


This is an interesting paper. The authors used the valuable data from the Italian national research assessment exercise and discussed a meaningful issue. In fact, mere presentation of the results from this research assessment exercise would be welcomed by readers of this journal.

 

The main shortcoming of this contribution lies in the fact that we fail to see any data given on the funding situation in general and research grant incomes in particular  of Italian universities. If the research assessment exercise did collect such data, we suggest that the authors add a further analysis and see whether or not the distribution of university scores match with the distribution of total funds of universities. Such discussion is essential, because in addition to individual factor and organizational factor, funding is another factor that cannot be ignored in discussing academic performance. If such data is not available, then the authors could still add some discussion on the uncertainty of the conclusion caused by lack of funding data at university level or department level.

 

The expression and the editing work could be further improved. Here are just a few examples:

 

P3, line 5: “and” should be asserted before “autonomy”.

P8, line 14: after “include”, “not only” should be added.

P10, line 1: “to” should be put at the beginning of this line.

P17, line 9: “if” should be “of”.

 




https://wap.sciencenet.cn/blog-1557-1312857.html

上一篇:美国加州一名音响工程师的哲思(35)
下一篇:对一部书稿的审读意见(2011)

3 郑永军 杨正瓴 许培扬

该博文允许注册用户评论 请点击登录 评论 (0 个评论)

数据加载中...

Archiver|手机版|科学网 ( 京ICP备07017567号-12 )

GMT+8, 2022-1-22 19:46

Powered by ScienceNet.cn

Copyright © 2007- 中国科学报社

返回顶部