英文论文评审意见汇总（11）

武夷山

第一则

20130207

This paper provides some information on the German and Chinese co-authorship in life sciences, but the granularity of analysis seems too coarse. In fact, there are a lot of interesting points that could be mined. For instance, among all those coauthored papers, are there some that are written in languages other than English (Germen, Chinese, etc.)? Where are those coauthored papers published? Are most of them published in really international journals? Or some published in Germany’s or China’s domestic journals, no matter these journals are in English, German or Chinese language？If possible, I hope that authors add similar analysis, which would make it a much insightful paper.

第二则

20130803

This work does not have much value, because among the chosen 5 independent variables or indicators, ES is the indicator closest to total citations, according to the definition of ES. If a paper is highly cited by others in the past 5 years, it is quite probable that it would remain highly cited in 2 years. This relation is too natural and obvious, and it really does not need a complex empirical study to prove it. 

第三则

20180621

1.  The definition of "science of science" in this context is needed. Usually we regard the academic field originated by British scientist J. D. Bernal as "science of science". Maybe another expression instead of "science of science" would be a better choice for the authors of this paper, so that semantic ambiguity could be avoided. 

2.  There exist quite a few grammatical errors and spelling errors. The following are just a few examples.

P3, right, line 22: "distribute" should be changed as "distribution".

P3, right: before "Cao et al.", the comma should be changed as a period.

P6, right, line 9: "analysis" should be changed as "analyze".

P7, right, line 1: The sentence should changed to "Predicting scholar impact also includes identifying...".

P9, right, somewhere: "whit" should be "with".

3.  This paper provides a comprehensive and logical literature review, which is the main advantage of the paper. Such work could help readers to grasp the relevant topics faster and more clearly. I would recommend the Editorial Board to publish this paper if only for this contribution.

4.  I am glad that the authors mentioned "self-citation" in the last section, but treated this topic too simplistically. In fact，self-citation is a rich mine to be excavated. For instance, for single- authored papers, getting 10 citations is not easy, while for the papers with more than 1000 authors (quite often in high-energy physics), 10 of the all authors citing themselves is a cup of coffee. I strongly suggest that in the future, some scholars would do bibliometric studies based on two separate groups: single authors vs. co-authors. Then everything will be different. For instance, a matrix composed of single authors would reflect the mutual influence between scholars more realistically.  I hope the authors strengthen the discussion on self-citation more thoroughly.