I have obtained a review for conference paper. Comment of reviewer is as follows:
The conclusion seems to draw more from the text than is elaborated.
What does he mean by this? Do I have to response for that?
I have obtained a review for conference paper. Comment of reviewer is as follows: The conclusion seems to draw more from the text than is elaborated. What does he mean by this? Do I have to response for that?
Think the reviewer might mean your research outcomes are similar to the literature you'd reviewed from journal articles, text books etc. The reviewer might want to see how's your research is unique in contributing to knowledge.
The reviewer might want you to elaborate further based on your empirical research to include the following in your discussion section of your paper:
The reviewer probably thinks that that there should be more discussion in the text.
I have obtained a review for conference paper. Comment of reviewer is as follows: The conclusion seems to draw more from the text than is elaborated. What does he mean by this? Do I have to response for that?
Think the reviewer might mean your research outcomes are similar to the literature you'd reviewed from journal articles, text books etc. The reviewer might want to see how's your research is unique in contributing to knowledge.
The reviewer might want you to elaborate further based on your empirical research to include the following in your discussion section of your paper:
http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/156412/what-does-the-reviewer-mean
The reviewer's word "the text" is ambiguous. However, the reviewer's sentence probably means this: The reviewer thinks that your conclusion is drawn from the superficial discussion not well based on your observation. So, you had better rewrite the section for results and discussion by attaching more importance to the facts you observed than the present version of the manuscript to make the derivation of the conclusion more natural and straightforward.
I agree with Dr. Han Ping Fung's answer. You should rewrite the conclusion section by including the major results of your research, how it is advantageous than the previous works, state whether you achieved the aim of your research, give the limitations/future works of the study. Avoid using same sentences for abstract ( or in other parts of main text) and conclusion.
Thanks,
Rohith
If the text is a text that you refer to in the conference paper, or your own text for that matter, then the reviewer is saying that you are drawing conclusions that are not warranted by what is already elaborated in the text. You are either 'over-reading' the text or imputing evidence/discussion/reasons/argument/etc., that is not there.
In sum: they are saying that you have not drawn a clear line between your conclusions and what is actually available (elaborated) in the text in question.
Perhaps the reviewer means that the 'conclusions' are not really 'conclusions'. Real conclusions, the reviewer might think, must arise directly from the argument in the main body of the paper and that, in the reviewer's opinion, yours do not. Si I'm more or less with Tatsuo Tabata.
However, I'm only guessing. The reviewer's remark is less than clear and therefore not as much help as it perhaps ought to be. But maybe reviewers do not always see themselves as 'educators' but as 'adjudicators' or as 'contestants'.
Conclusion should include conclusions e.g. synthesis and perspectives which are not already included in the discussion.
Your conclusion should not have any statement that is not supported by the evidence you have already presented.
You have to respond in one of two ways:
1. Delete from the current Conclusion any statements that have not been proven.
OR
2. Include in your Conclusions those items you have proven but forgotten to summarise in your existing Conclusions.
This is a common error, and you can easily fix it.
Yes, a very common error. I agree with Ian Kennedy. Sometimes it is tempting to draw more and more widespread conclusions than your actual results/arguments/data in the text allows you to. As Ian Kennedy says, it should be easy to fix. Rewrite your conclusions with the aim of sticking more precisely to the conclusion your analysis provides.
Dear Sirs, thank you very much for your answers. I appreciate it and I will follow given advices.
Han Ping Fung has elaborated the reasons in a nice way.I doubt reviewer is indicating plagiarism
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Ethics