应一些同志的要求,贴出外审意见,希望有好建议(1)改还是不改,(2)如何改?希望帮提一批实质性的修改方法,尤其“同方法偏差”及“自相关”、“数据说明”的问题。
外审一:
该论文希望通过实证研究,探索……、……、……和……间的关系,选题具有一定的理论与现实意义。不过该论文存在如下较为严重的问题:
(1)论文文献综述部分没有阐述清楚……、……对……与……间关系的影响;……、……作为中介变量的假设的理论支持不够充分,为什么是中介变量而不是缓冲变量?
(2)文中没有提及……的概念,为什么论文题目中会涉及……(这主要是因为内容太难概括了)。
(3)研究问卷的来源和出处交代得较为模糊,如作者提到自己修订了……问卷,但没有说明怎么修订的,哪些项目做了修订,有没有理论支持等;……用“……”和“……”两个项目进行测量,根本没有反映……,……和……有什么关联呢;……更像是在测量……,……自编量表如何从26个项目修订为9个项目,也没有具体说明。
(4)电子邮件发放问卷占到了54%,回收率为284/1125,这么低的回收率需要检验反应偏差,最起码提供深度调查、MBA学员和电子邮件等不同来源问卷的差异比较。
(5)数据共同方法偏差明显,结构方程模型检验数据驱动明显,四地区及不同性质企业模型比较缺乏理论支持,国有企业只有28个样本也进行了模型检验;
(6)表10呈现了……对……的总影响达到了0.97,说明只要了解……几乎就可以解释……了,明显不符合常识,管理研究很少能有这么高的解释效应的,数据质量问题还是模型检验问题,希望说明。
外审二:
本文采用结构方程建模的方法,探究了……对……的影响,相比于前人的研究,所选择的课题有新意。研究从量表的选择和编制、施测以及数据的分析,这些过程都是合理的。研究结果有一些价值。建议发表。建议作者需对文章中下面的一些问题予以考虑和修改:(1) 在研究设计部分,对量表的介绍和图1中的模型在名称上不一致;在研究设计部分没有对……(对应于模型中……)这一量表的说明;(2) 在研究结果部分,“假设5(H5)不成立”这种说法不准确,关于假设检验严格的数学原理指出:不能接受备择假设并不意味着能够接受零假设。改为“假设5(H5)未能被证实”较为妥当;(3) 题目似应改为“……对……的影响”这一简洁形式,影响包括直接影响和间接影响,其他因素的中介作用可归入间接影响。
编委专家:
Two experts have reviewed the paper and I have studied the manuscript before and after consulting the reviews. Although one reviewer favors this manuscript, the other reviewer is critical of it. My independent reading of the manuscript led me to the conclusion that the manuscript does not meet the threshold of publication in …… for four major reasons.
First, the dependent measure is a self-reported measure of …… and …….researchers generally do not accept such measures as objective measures of……. As such, the current study did not contribute to our understanding of …… or …… and has little applied value. To address this issue, the author should either obtain …… or ……ratings of the respondents'…… or have the respondent complete objective measure of ……. Ideally, the author should obtain both observer ratings and ……data to establish the convergent validity of their results.
Second, all measures were self-report measures. Hence, the positive relationships among the measured variables could be due to common method variance. To address this issue, the author should try to employ multiple methods to assess their predictor and outcome variables.
Third, the current study adopted a concurrent design. Given the correlational nature of the data, it is impossible to infer causal directions from the data.
Finally, related to the third point, because the results are correlational in nature, there are many other possible interpretations. For example, it is possible that individuals who have more positive attitudes or are more enthusiastic about…… are more willing to embed themselves in a …… and engage in ……. The authors should have identified the alternative models and compared the model fit of the hypothesized model with that of the alternative models. Given these considerations, I would not recommend this paper for publication.


雷达卡
京公网安备 11010802022788号







