ÕâÊÇһƪȫ¹ý³ÌÎÒ¾ù±È½ÏÁ˽âµÄͶ¸å£¬¸å¼þµÄÄÚÈÝÎÒÈÏΪÊÇÏ൱²»´íµÄ£¬ÖÐÎİæÍ¶¸åÓÚÒµÄÚÓнϸßÓ°ÏìµÄijºËÐÄÆÚ¿¯£¬²¢ºÜ¿ìµÃµ½·¢±í¡£ÆäʱÎÒ×÷ΪÉó¸åÈËÖ®Ò»£¬³ýÁËÌá³öһЩÐ޸Ľ¨ÒéÍ⣬»¹Ìؽ¨ÒéÁË5ƪӦÔö¼ÓµÄ²Î¿¼ÎÄÏ×£¬¸ÃÎÄÕýʽ·¢±íʱ¹²¼ÆÓвο¼ÎÄÏ×25ƪ¡£
×÷Õß»òÐí¿´µ½Éó¸åÒâ¼û»¹²»´í£¬Òò´Ë¾öÒâ³¢ÊÔÏòÃÀ¹úijѧ»áÖ÷°ìµÄÒ»·ÝÓ¢ÎÄ¿¯Í¶¸å¡£¼¸¾Ð޸ĺͲ¹³äºó£¬ÇëһλӢÎÄ“¹¦µ×"½ÏºÃµÄÖйúÈË·Ò룬Ͷ¸åºóÔ¼3ÖÜ£¬±ã·µ»ØÁËÈý·ÝÉó¸åÒâ¼û¡£
´ÓÓ¢ÎÄ¿¯µÄ·´À¡Òâ¼û¿´£¬ÕâÆª¸å¼þÖÐ×îÑÏÖØµÄÎÊÌâÊÇÎÄÏ××ÛÊöºÍÒýÓò»¹»£¬Æä´ÎÊÇÓïÑÔ±í´ï·½ÃæµÄǷȱ£¬´ËÍâÊÇÂÛÖ¤¹ý³ÌºÍ½á¹ûչʾÐÎʽ·½ÃæµÄ²»×ã¡£
¸ÐÏ룺һƪºÃµÄÂÛÎÄ£¬´ÓÄÚÈݵ½ÐÎʽ¶¼ÐèÒª¾«µñϸ×Á¡£
¸½1£ºÖÐÒëÉó¸åÒâ¼û
Éó¸åÒâ¼û—1
(1) Ó¢Îıí´ïÌ«²î£¬¾¡¹ÜÒâ˼´óÖÂÄܱí´ïÇå³þ£¬µ«ÎÄ·¨´íÎóÌ«¶à¡£
(2) ÎÄÏ××ÛÊö½Ï²î£¬¹Ûµã»òÂÛ¶ÏÓ¦ÓÐÎÄeÏ×Ö§³Ö¡£
(3) ÂÛÎĶÁÆðÀ´ÏñÊÇXXXµÄ¹ã¸æ£¬²»ÖªµÀ×÷ÕßÓëXXÊÇ·ñûÓйØÁª¡£
(4) ¸ÃģʽµÄ´´ÐÂÐÔ²¢·ÇÈç×÷ÕßËùÊö£¬Ä¿Ç°ÓÐÐí¶àXX²ÉÈ¡´Ëģʽ£¨ÈçÃÀ¹úµØÇòÎïÀíѧ»á£©£¬×÷ÕßÓ¦Ïê¼Óµ÷²é²¢·ÖÎöXXXÔË×÷ģʽµÄ´´Ðµ㡣
(5) ¸ÃģʽҲ²»ÊÇ×÷ÕßËù˵µÄÄÇÑù³É¹¦&hellipy…(Éó¸åÈ˽áºÏÂÛÎÄÖеÄÊý¾Ý¾ßÌå·ÖÎö)
Éó¸åÒâ¼û—2
(1) ȱÉÙÖ±½ÓÏà¹ØµÄÎÄÏ×ÒýÓÃ(Èç…)¡£
(2) д×÷ÖÊÁ¿´ï²»µ½ÃÀ¹úѧÊõÆÚ¿¯µÄ±ê×¼¡£
Éó¸åÒâ¼û—3
(1) ×÷ÕßÓ¦×ÅÖØÖ¸³öÖ¸³ö±¾È˵űÏס£
(2)dȱÉÙÖ§³Ö×÷Õß·¢Ïֵķ½·¨Ñ§·ÖÎö¡£
(3)
èÒª²ÉÓñí¸ñºÍͼ¼þÐÎʽչʾ(Êý¾Ý)²ÄÁÏ¡£
¸½2£ºÓ¢ÎÄÉó¸åÒâ¼û(ÂÔÓÐɾ½Ú)
Reviewer: 1
There are many things wrong with this paper.
The English is very bad. Although the meaning is by and large clear, not too many sentences are correct.
The literature review is poor. The paper is riddled with assertions and claims that should be supported by references.
The paper reads as an advertisement for XXX. It is not clear that the author is independent of XXX.
The AA model of XXX is not as innovative as the author claims. There are now many XX that follow this model (American Geophysical Union, for example), and the author should survey these model to see which one first introduced the elements of the XXX model.
The model is also not as successful as the author claims. ……
Overall, the presentation and the contents of the paper can only mean that I reject that the paper be rejected.
Reviewer: 2
The are two major problems with this paper:
(1) It is missing the context of (and citations to) what is now know as the "two-sided" market literature including that directly related to … (e.g. Braunstein, JASIS 1977; Economides & Katsanakas, Mgt. Sci., 2006; McCabe & Snyder, B.E. J Econ Analysis, 2007).
(2) The writing quality is not up to the standard of a US scholarly journal.
Reviewer: 3
1. The author should accentuate his contributions in this manuscript.
2. It lacks analytical methodologies to support author’s discoveries.
3. Description style material like this manuscript requires structured tables & figures for better presentations.