对英国Journal of Information Science杂志一篇稿件的审稿意见

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)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Horizontal 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 newspapers, the conclusion is dubious.
>
> 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