[問題] 不知道這個Comment是什麼意思，求助～
最近一篇等了很久的paper有了回音
前面三點都是一些細節的修改
不過後面有一點提到一個，我不知道該怎麼解讀的部分
請各位給我個建議
4. The authors note on p4 last paragraph that even if field method is
the most realistic "it is dangerous, especially when participants have
to drive". I would not say so as an excuse for not doing on-road studies.
We need real-life studies in traffic, and people typically expose
themselves to similar or much higher risks daily when commuting to work
and back, using mobile communication and all other distractors.
This study is a good start in a theoretically interesting (and perhaps
practically applicable) issue but next I'd like to see a well planned
on-road study where XXXXXXXX with XXXXXXXX can be used to XXXXXXXXX.
大致也就是說寄過去的東西是個好開頭，不過以危險作為不作道路實驗並不是好理由
所以下次他希望能看見一個設計完善的道路實驗
我得問題是
Reviewer是希望我的revision可以包含道路駕駛？
基本上在我得實驗設計條件跟台灣的道路狀況
這幾乎是不可能的阿
而且三個月之內要回覆
我可以回覆這個狀況？
還是我可以跟他說在下一次新的論文投稿我會作這樣的嘗試？
還是我根本會錯意，他只是給我一個以後研究的建議？
我可以寫信去問editor嗎？
不好意思，我挺嫩的
感謝各位
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 140.114.202.128
推
02/14 16:48, , 1F
02/14 16:48, 1F
→
02/14 16:49, , 2F
02/14 16:49, 2F
推
02/14 17:17, , 3F
02/14 17:17, 3F
→
02/14 17:18, , 4F
02/14 17:18, 4F
→
02/14 17:20, , 5F
02/14 17:20, 5F
→
02/14 17:22, , 6F
02/14 17:22, 6F
→
02/14 17:22, , 7F
02/14 17:22, 7F
→
02/14 17:24, , 8F
02/14 17:24, 8F
→
02/14 17:25, , 9F
02/14 17:25, 9F
→
02/14 17:27, , 10F
02/14 17:27, 10F
→
02/14 19:24, , 11F
02/14 19:24, 11F
→
02/14 19:25, , 12F
02/14 19:25, 12F
→
02/14 19:26, , 13F
02/14 19:26, 13F
→
02/14 19:27, , 14F
02/14 19:27, 14F
→
02/14 19:33, , 15F
02/14 19:33, 15F
→
02/14 19:51, , 16F
02/14 19:51, 16F
→
02/14 19:51, , 17F
02/14 19:51, 17F
→
02/14 20:27, , 18F
02/14 20:27, 18F
PhD 近期熱門文章
PTT職涯區 即時熱門文章
8
13