systematic review CGE models[November 01, 2021 04:14] For the new writer:<\/p>\n
Working in the file “to_revise”, address the following:<\/p>\n
1. Fix all comments in the file “to_revise”<\/p>\n
2. Rewrite Discussion – it should not be the continuation of Results, with selected studies further explored in detail and compared with each other.<\/p>\n
– “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.<\/p>\n
– “Aydin and Ari (2020) supported Keogh-Brown et al.\u2019s (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 G\u00f6ssling 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.<\/p>\n
– 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.’<\/p>\n
3. Stick to the upper word limit (8000 words).<\/p>\n
4. Keep your writing style neutral (e.g., “the extent to which the tourism sector crumbled was huge”, “tremendous losses” – too emotionally loaded).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
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 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[22],"class_list":["post-68978","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-research-paper-writing","tag-economics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68978","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=68978"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68978\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=68978"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=68978"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=68978"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}