四面楚歌

剛剛 真的感覺很受打擊 幾乎是四面楚歌的感覺啦 不是洗三溫暖喔
晚上先收到 上次投稿上的文章終於 刊登出來了 還蠻開心的
但老實說 因為已經早就接受了 所以 也沒有什麼好開心的 其實有一點小開心
但是在 23:50分時 感覺被打了一槍 狠狠地打了一槍 還是命中心臟啊 很想...
那就是 上一個月初投出去的文章 被Reject了 原本就知道 那一篇文章的缺失
出去之前 就知道了 因為樣本數真的太少了 當時嘗試用其他方法去彌補那一個缺失
但是 還是被批掛囉 真的是 不知道該如何是好 當然 Reviers的建議 當然不只如此
真的很傷心勒 因為 已經認為自己的英文算寫的不錯了 老實說 當時很有Fu的
而學弟送去也幫忙 送出去給美國的朋友看一下 似乎是沒問題的
結果 還是被批說 英文寫的很差 文不達意 還有很多內容沒表達清楚的
感覺真的很受傷 幾乎 不知道該如何是好 好慘阿

Editor 回信說 兩位Reviers給的意見如下
Reviewer: 1
Comments to the Author
A great deal of work needs to be undertaken to bring this paper up to a standard that would be acceptable in an academic journal.
To start with, the paper suffers from the rather poor use of the English language.
At times the sentences have no meaning and the hypotheses themselves are incomprehensible. The hypotheses seem to be rather general and not well grounded in the literature.
You should do a better job in terms of develping the measurement instrument, particularly choosing scales for measurement.
You need to read the literature on developing measures and instruments.
The response rate is low and final number of questionnaires too few to actually perform structural equation modelling.
The discussion of the results is very limited.
There is no discussion of contributions to knowledge and other implications (research) and research limitations arising from the study.
I suggest that a literature review is undertaken and a revision of the hypotheses in order to develop hypotheses that would actually contribute to knowledge development and that would be meaningful.
I suggest proper development of the survey instrument.
I suggest collection of data with at least 200 responses for SEM.
I suggest a more extensive discussion of how the results contribute to current understanding on the subject matter, with specific contributions and recommendations for further research.

Reviewer: 2
Comments to the Author
Although the topic addressed by the paper is worthy of investigation, the results do not make any substantive theoretical and empirical contribution to the literature.
More in detail, the research problem is not properly embedded within the frame of relevant literature: the most relevant perspectives on cooperative behaviour in 3PL relationships such as network theory and relationship marketing are not considered and any robust justification is provided for focusing the analysis only on TCT and AT.
This is a particularly critical point as it is claimed that the main contribution of the paper consists in considering several theoretical perspectives on the topic under investigation.
Moreover, hypotheses are not well formulated, variables are not correctly operationalized and the sampling strategy does not ensure an adequate generalizability of the results.

現在的感覺 很sad的 不知道該如何是好 該開心嗎 還是難過 無法言語阿
往好處想 當然 可以知道 這一篇文章的缺失 可以再改進 且另外投稿到其他地方去
Reviers給的意見 剛好可以給我們有許多參考的地方 真的是很不錯啦
但現在的事四面楚歌阿 幾乎不知道該怎麼辦勒
要改今年畢業學弟的一篇文章 還要補完今年被退兩次稿的文章
月底之前還要 趕完一個兩年期的國科會計畫 真是大工程
還有 一篇已經出去四個月的文章 卻一直沒有消息 同樣的期刊 卻要多等一個月
再來 某一篇中文稿 已經第二次送出去審稿都兩個月了 卻還是沒消息 深怕又發生慘案
最後 因為 那一篇送出四個月的文章還沒回來 害我 根本不知道該怎麼辦啦
因為 我有一篇在等它的結果阿 似乎 會搞到布拉格去不成了 真是悶喔
怎麼辦勒 四面楚歌 那樣的感覺很不好 唉 無奈阿

PS：可悲的博士班生活
湯四面楚歌超難過的啦