systematic review CGE models[November 01, 2021 04:14] For the new writer:
Working in the file “to_revise”, address the following:
1. Fix all comments in the file “to_revise”
2. Rewrite Discussion – it should not be the continuation of Results, with selected studies further explored in detail and compared with each other.
– “Information provided by Chen, Huang, and Li (2020) and Khalifa (2020) was in line with the findings of Walmsley, Rose, and Wei (2021)”: This passage reads as if Chen, Huang and Li (2020) and Khalifa (2020) were analysed in the Results chapter, which is not the case. Other examples of the same issue: “Supporting the information presented by Porsse et al. (2020), Davahli et al. (2020) explained”, etc.
– “Aydin and Ari (2020) supported Keogh-Brown et al.’s (2021) arguments”: An article published in 2020 cannot support the arguments of an article published in 2021. “The arguments of Walmsley, Rose, and Wei (2021) were reflected in Gössling et al. (2020)”: The arguments of an article published in 2021 cannot be reflected in a source that was published earlier. Correct the in-text referencing (e.g., Walmsley, Rose and Wei are dated 2020 in your reference list) and ensure that there are no time paradoxes such as these.
– As mentioned previously: ‘Every paragraph in the Discussion should follow a similar structure: show exactly how the data answer your research questions, then consistently tie them back to previous studies and literature (e.g., “These findings are consistent/inconsistent with…”); finally, argue for the conclusions that you draw from your analysis.’
3. Stick to the upper word limit (8000 words).
4. Keep your writing style neutral (e.g., “the extent to which the tourism sector crumbled was huge”, “tremendous losses” – too emotionally loaded).