麻烦看一下这个审稿意见的类型是major revision还是rejection？

5个回答默认排序

默认排序

按时间排序

大飞猪猪

已采纳

期刊是frontiers in public health，审稿人1没有写是major revision还是rejection，下面是审稿人邮件的内容：
Independent Review Report, Reviewer 1
EVALUATION
Please list your revision requests for the authors and provide your detailed comments, including highlighting limitations and strengths of the study and evaluating the validity of the methods, results, and data interpretation. If you have additional comments based on Q2 and Q3 you can add them as well.
This study seeks to examine the effect of co-residing with daughters-in-law for older adult frailty in China using CLASS data. This study that sheds light on how family factors shape older adult health is especially interesting and important in the context of the rapidly aging Chinese society. I have the following recommendations to improve the study.

Major:
1. Introduction: The authors go through great lengths to motivate the study, yet I am left pondering this question: What is so special about daughters-in-law that merits a separate investigation apart from overall co-residence with children? The authors talked briefly about this in the independent variable section, but a longer elaboration placed in the intro is warranted, especially since this is the main crux of the paper.
2. Design:
a. For the main analyses, the authors excluded individuals who changed co-residential statuses. Why confine the analyses to individuals with fixed living arrangements between the two study periods? The between-period changes seem to be an important source of heterogeneity that the authors exclude. Interestingly, I am left to wonder why results from the inclusion of living arrangements changers were relegated to mere robustness checks.
b. To me, the authors could explain in better detail why quantile regression was done. My understanding of the technique is that it is superior for dependent variables that have a lot of outliers. The SD of the frailty seems quite low, and maybe describing the skewness may help the authors make the case for quantile regression.
c. Similarly, the description of PSM is confusing. What was the matching technique employed (the authors elaborated this in the results, but I think it should also be explicated in the methods section) and how would the choice of matching matter for the results?
d. The authors are trying to do too much and it may actually benefit the work to limit the analyses to the simple multivariate OLS with independent variables that better reflect the change in living arrangements between the two years.
3. Data: Please elaborate more on the dataset. Is this nationally representative? Where is the citation? Is this publicly available?
4. Control variables: What counts in number of living children? My understanding is that most of China was affected by the one-child policy, yet mean number of children was beyond 1. If this variable counts children-in-laws, then this is highly correlated with the main independent variable, which biases the results.
5. Results:
a. I feel that the descriptive statistics deserve some brief explanation before the multivariate analyses.
b. What does 0.0088 in the abstract and results mean? Since the frailty index ranges from 0-1, would a coefficient of 0.0088 imply a small effect size? Maybe a better way to present this number is by % increase in frailty associated with living with daughter-in-law? Even the ATT from PSM yielded a small effect size of 1.572%.
c. The methods did not mention subgroup analyses, yet the results show them and it quickly gets overwhelming. There may be theoretically sound reasons why there is effect heterogeneity by sex, age, urban-rural, etc., but they were not explicated in the introduction. To reiterate, the work may benefit from simplifying the analyses, and the authors can maybe pursue these moderation analyses in future work.
6. Discussion:
a. The authors conclude by saying that living with a daughter-in-law could imply grandchild care responsibilities for the older adult. An important control that the authors did not include was the presence of grandchildren in the home (if available in the data).
b. Who benefits from the coresidential arrangement remains unclear, and the authors should acknowledge this caveat in these types of work.
c. The implications for theory and practice put forth by the authors did not match the purpose of the study. Why mention the role of socioeconomic status and risk factors, when the key explanatory variable is living arrangements? Please consider deleting the first paragraph and elaborate more on the (1) changing preferences of older people to live alone and maintain independence, (2) coresidence and living nearby as a family solution to the lack of long-term care (and other social services) for frail older adults, (3) how the results relate to the law in China that relegates eldercare responsibilities to the family.

Minor:
1. The work may benefit from further proofreading for style (please note that I am a non-native English speaker myself and I greatly benefitted from proofreading services like Grammarly). For example, abbreviations that are not traditionally found in journals like “didn’t” were used. And there were subject-verb disagreements.
2. For the equations, the notation should be consistent and fully explained. For example, the OLS uses FI to denote the dependent variable, yet for the quantile regression and PSM, the dependent variable was denoted as Y.
3. Please elaborate on what BADL/ IADL mean.

Check List
a. Is the quality of the figures and tables satisfactory?
Yes
b. Does the reference list cover the relevant literature adequately and in an unbiased manner?
Yes
c. Are the statistical methods valid and correctly applied? (e.g. sample size, choice of test)
No
d. Is a statistician required to evaluate this study?
No
e. Are the methods sufficiently documented to allow replication studies?
No
QUALITY ASSESSMENT:
Rigor
5
Quality of the writing
2
Overall quality of the content
2
Interest to a general audience
5
但是我通过frontiers的官方客服询问目前的稿件状态，结果是审稿人1的意见是拒绝发表，让我感到很疑惑，下面是客服的回复：
Many thanks for your patience. Currently we have only Reviewer 1 who has recommended rejection. In order for your paper to be accepted, we would require at least 2 Reviewers endorsing your paper.

We have notified the handling editor about this and are actively working to ensure that the review process moves forward as soon as possible.
所以我想请问一下，审稿人的意见到底是什么，请了解的朋友解答@

141 评论 1小时前发布