一篇SSCI论文从投稿到录用大概会经历这样一个过程(不同出版平台的表达会有差异，但意思差不多)：Submitted to the Journal—With Editor—Editor Assigned—Reviewers Invited--Under Review—Required Review Completed—Awaiting decision—Major Revision/ Minor Revision—Accept.

     下面分享我2020年的一篇SSCI论文从投稿到被录用的过程，这篇论文经历了两轮修改才被录用。过程比较复杂，中间刚好遇到该期刊两任Editor-in-Chief交接工作。第一次提交的时候是前任Editor-in-Chief，收到Decision Letter是新的Editor-in-Chief。第二次提交收到的Decision Letter，又换回了原来的Editor-in-Chief。

•  第一轮评审，有一位同行评审建议直接“Accept”，一位建议“Minor Revision ”，第三位同行评审建议“Major Revision”建议（第三位同行评审的意见中提到的问题和第二份类似，不知道是不是新Editor-in-Chief觉得应该给“Major Revision”，自己也参与了评审，由于Editor-in-Chief是能看到作者信息的，这样会违反同行评审双向匿名的原则）。

•  修改提交后，第二轮评审中，第二个同行评审也给了“Accept”（这时候已经有两个Accept了），第三个同行评审给了“Reject”，但是建议却不是“硬伤”类的问题，指出的两个问题都可以解决！ 

• 第二轮评审结束后，Decision Letter中换回原来的Editor-in-Chief了，综合建议还是给了“Major Revision”。

• 第二轮修改，由于当时另外一篇SSCI论文也处于修改状态，同时还有中文论文也退修了，事情都撞到一起了。花了十来天时间解决了第三位同行评审提出的两个问题后，直接就提交了，想着要拒就拒吧。

• 第二次修改提交后的第二天，出人意料地收到了录用通知。

以下是三份同行评审意见，跟大家分享：

 Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:

Reviewer: 1

Recommendation: Accept

Comments:

Nothing special. A well prepared and presented paper offering some new insights into the theory behind customer satisfaction.

Additional Questions:

1. Originality: Does the paper contain new and significant information adequate to justify publication?: This paper travels a little beyond many of those in the field by considering in more depth the nature and influence of customer satisfaction on Paid Knowledge Platforms (PKP).

While some findings of this paper (eg. utilitarian and "hedonic" (sic)value can drive customer satisfaction) might have been assumed by marketing folk for many years (p.8), the authors make the rather bold step of applying (and analysing) those factors as regards paid knowledge.

While it states some marketing maxims current for many years, this paper does offer a more closely argued case for the application of those maxims to a PKP.

2. Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources?  Is any significant work ignored?: This paper uses current literature well and brings together much of the discussion in the past two or three years on this topic (eg. Zhang, Zhang & Zhang 2019; Fu et.al. 2020; Zhang, Zhang, Zhao & Li 2020). It builds on previous work by Wang, Mei & Feng 2020 in a way that reflects additional understandings to much of the previous discussions and takes the next step towards a model for predicting user satisfaction in the PKP area.

I do not think any significant work has been ignored by the author(s).

3. Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts, or other ideas?  Has the research or equivalent intellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed?  Are the methods employed appropriate?: Methodology does seem sufficiently robust for this paper. A sample of 540 would appear quite adequate.

The SEM technique chosen to interpret the data is a recognised technique and suitable to the task. The method has been applied to social perceptions before (eg. Urban 1996; Li et.al. 1998) and does appear to offer advantages for the purposes of the present paper.

4. Results: Are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: Results are treated well and appear to reflect the methodology and findings honestly. Table placement will be important to the finished published format but the author(s) indications of position seem suitable.

Discussion of the results is sound and consistency with other existing literature is shown as further defense of the findings.

5. Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society?  Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)?  What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)?  Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?: Perceived value is an important consideration for KM generally but one that is not always thoroughly understood or utliised. This paper lays an arguably solid foundation for further development and discussion of this rather illusive and challenging concept.

Achieving value from knowledge remains a rather difficult task to evaluate and/or implement. This paper provides some valuable insights into how this might be done and also the importance of both perceived value and its relationship to customer loyalty. Future studies can build on this research to further develop this important understanding and its applications.

Based on Chinese data to a large extent, this paper does open the door wider to comparative studies from other regions. There are not many of these at present.

Of some significance is the author(s) note that the concepts in their paper open a door top more detailed study regarding the effects of gender, education and use frequency on perceived value of information being offered by a PKP. They leave room and encouragement for further investigation.

6. Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the field and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: Essentially fine.

References are respected, current and of high quality. Language is accessible. Construction professional. Research questions are clear and stated early. They remain a focus throughout the paper.

A couple of very minor suggestions might be;

1. insert "the question of", after "providers" in line 54, page 3.

2. "has" rather than "have" I suggest at the end of line 33, pg 18.

An experienced editor may find one or two more. Otherwise, a well written and presented paper.

Reviewer: 2

Recommendation: Minor Revision

Comments:

This research proposes a research model based on the updated information system success model, perceived value, and new product novelty. By verifying the ten hypotheses proposed in this way to verify what factors will affect user satisfaction and loyalty on the paid knowledge platform，and the mediating roles of Perceived Value. The work of this paper is practical and logical. However, there are some problems to be further improved as well.

Additional Questions:

1. Originality: Does the paper contain new and significant information adequate to justify publication?: This study tested the mediating effect of perceived value on user satisfaction and loyalty in the scenario of a knowledge payment platform. It has a great significance to reveal the mechanism and principles behind the loyalty and satisfaction of users to the platform, but there is seldom special contribution in general theory or need to be detailed if there is some.

2. Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources?  Is any significant work ignored?: The relevant theories were organized well and the formulation of the hypothesis is also logical. However, it lacks some overall background literature reviews，such as the related research status of paid knowledge platforms.

3. Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts, or other ideas?  Has the research or equivalent intellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed?  Are the methods employed appropriate?: The methodology is ok.

4. Results: Are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: The results are presented clearly，but I did not see the explanation for the rejection of Hypothesis 4 and Hypothesis 5. Besides，The mediation effect of perceived value should be more detailed.

5. Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society?  Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)?  What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)?  Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?: The influence of the paper on theoretical research needs further explanation.

6. Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the field and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: The author's language expression is concise and easy to understand， the reading is relatively smooth.

Reviewer: 3

Recommendation: Major Revision

Comments:

This paper focuses on users' satisfaction and loyalty to continue using the knowledge-payment platform and constructs a hypothetical model of the satisfaction and loyalty to continue using the knowledge-payment platform based on platform quality, new product novelty, and perceived value．The statistical software was used to analyze the research data effectively, and the proposed model was validated by the structural equation model (SEM). However, there are many limitations in understanding the factors that affect users' satisfaction and loyalty to continue to use.

1) Based on the stimulus-organism-response (SOR), grounded theory, or flow theory, a range of scholars has explored the driving effect of perceived value on users' satisfaction for continually using the knowledge-payment platform. It is controversial for authors of this paper to claim that the existing research rarely explores the influences of customer satisfaction. Thus, the authors should review more research on the determinants of satisfaction and loyalty of the knowledge-payment platform. Please present the influential factors found in the previous study in a table that can highlight the research gaps.

2) This paper tries to examine the mediating effect of perceived value on user satisfaction and loyalty. However, it is not clear based on the experimental results. It is necessary to elaborate on the moderating effect of perceived value.

3) The theoretical contribution in section 6 is not explained clearly. It is required to give an inaccurate picture of what contribution the paper can provide for behavior research.

Additional Questions:

1. Originality: Does the paper contain new and significant information adequate to justify publication?: Yes. This paper focuses on users' satisfaction and loyalty to continue using the knowledge-payment platform and constructs a hypothetical model of the satisfaction and loyalty to continue using the knowledge-payment platform based on platform quality, new product novelty, and perceived value．

2. Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources?  Is any significant work ignored?: No, the authors should review more research on the determinants of satisfaction and loyalty of the knowledge-payment platform and present the influential factors found in the previous study in a table that can highlight the research gaps.

3. Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts, or other ideas?  Has the research or equivalent intellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed?  Are the methods employed appropriate?: Yes. Through the lens of updated IS success model, new product novelty, and perceived, this study aims to explore the determinants that impact user satisfaction and loyalty by

addressing the following research questions.

4. Results: Are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: No. It is necessary to elaborate on the moderating effect of perceived value according to the experimental results.

5. Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society?  Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)?  What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)?  Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?: The theoretical contribution in section 6  is not explained clearly. It is required to give an inaccurate picture of what contribution the paper can provide for behavior research.

6. Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the field and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: The text is relatively fluent, easy to read and understand.