研究方法研讨班管理哲学师资培训活动报名

General Review Writing Guidelines

General Review Writing Guidelines

论文审稿指引


1. Your task as a review is not just to help us decide which paper to accept or reject
for the conference, but also to help authors improve their work Please keep this
mission in mind as you write your manuscript reviews. In order to achieve this goal,
we ask you to provide some depth to your reviews, and be supportive in tone and
content. A typical review is about a page or two in length; while there is variation in
length, please note that one or two sentence reviews are not helpful to the authors.
作为审稿人,您的作用不仅是帮助我们决定哪篇论文应被大会录用,而且要帮助作者
提升他们的论文,所以请在撰写论文审阅意见中,请谨记这两条“使命”。为此,我们
也请您提供有深度的审阅意见,在内容上和语气上争取给予鼓励和支持。一般的审阅
意见篇幅为1-2页,尽管可长可短,但一两句的简单意见恐怕对作者毫无益处。

2. Please write as if you were speaking to the author directly about his or her
manuscript. This will facilitate a more “friendly” tone. For example, say “Your writing
is very clear and interesting” instead of “The author’s writing is very clear and
interesting”.
在撰写论文审阅意见时,请留意如同您与作者就他/她的论文进行直接的交谈,这样
更有助于建立“友好”的气氛。比如,“作者的写作很清晰、很有意思”这样的意见,如
果能写成“您的写作很清晰、很有意思”就显得亲切了。

 3. An empirical paper has four major parts. A conceptual paper does not have a
Method part. Please comment on each aspect of the paper.
实证性的论文有四个部分,概念性的论文没有方法那部分。请对每一部分提出您的意
见。

a. Introduction – is the research problem clearly stated? Does the author
clearly explain why the research topic is important and how this paper will
advance our knowledge on the topic?
前言部分:有没有清晰地说明要研究的问题?作者有没有明确地说明该研
究课题为什么是重要的、该论文如何能在此课题上提升我们的知识?

b. Theory and hypotheses – Does the literature reviewed relate to the
research problem? Are the hypotheses reasonable and interesting? Is
the conceptual logic (theory) well explained and convincing?
理论与假设部分:已查阅的文献是否与研究的问题有关?假设是否合理并
有意思?概念逻辑(理论)是否进行了很好的解释、是否有说服力?

c. Method – Is the sample appropriate for the study? What is the quality of
the measures? Are the statistical approaches relevant? Does the
research design fit the hypotheses?
方法部分:采用的样本对研究是否合适?量表的质量怎样?统计方式是否
相关?研究设计是否与假设相符?

d. Results and discussion – Are the results interesting and significant?
Does the discussion offer new insight on the phenomenon and provide
important suggestions for future research?
研究结果与讨论部分:研究结果是否既有意思又有意义?讨论部分是否对
现象有新的洞见、是否为以后的研究提供了重要的建议?

4. It is helpful if you use a “numbering” system to make your points. Number each
suggestion or comment within each of the main parts as described above. This
helps you to organize your feedback
建议您将您的意见有序列出:在上述的每一部分框架内,有序地列出您的建议和意
见,这样有助于很好地组织您的反馈意见。

5. Be specific about the problem you see and offer any suggestions wherever
possible. Therefore, you are a “coach” as well as a “judge”.
对于存在的问题,要具体、明确地指出,并提出可能的建议,这样,您不仅是“裁
判”,而且是“教练”。

6. Try to find positive features of the manuscripts as well as identifying problems. Even
for manuscripts with serious problems that may not be able to be rectified, it is
encouraging to provide some positive feedback to the author.
在指出存在的问题的同时,尽可能地发掘论文的积极方面。即使是存在无法弥补的重
大问题,也请给作者提供一些积极的反馈意见。

7. Please do not make statements such as “this manuscript should be accepted,” or
“this manuscript has a good chance of being accepted,” or “this manuscript should
not be accepted,” etc. In other words, please do not comment on the possible
ultimate outcome of the manuscript.
请 不要在反馈意见中提出诸如“该论文应被录用”、“该论文很有可能被录用”或者“该论
文不应该被录用”等等说法。就是说,请 不要对论文的最后可能的结果给出意见。

8. After you have completed and sent back the review, please delete the manuscript
immediately. All manuscripts are confidential and should not be shared with others.
在您完成审阅并将审阅意见反馈给作者后,请即刻删除论文文件。请注意:所有的论
文都是保密的,不应该与他人分享。