this is my paper that I would like to publish. it was rejected and needs some improvement.
you will also find the comments from the reviewers in orrder to help.
please have a look on the paper and the comments and let me know what do you think and how much will coast. I will shortly email you with my documents for PhD application.
The Comments from the reviewers :
Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
Comments to the Author
This paper is not of an appropriate standard for publication in MiE .
Although this is an important topic of interest to an international audience, this research has not been well designed and the findings are very slight indeed. The paper overclaims its significance (see pp 6-7) and underdelivers.
The literature review covers some appropriate sources but is very repetitive and prescriptive, lacking in depth of analysis. The author does not understand RM and sampling – he/she claims to use the Taro Yamane formula (which is inappropriate here), and gives total population as 2000 (presumably schools/heads, but seem a lot for one town where the study took place?) – using the formula it is claimed that a sample of 25 is needed – this calculation is incorrect - the correct figure is 333! It is not clear how the 25 respondents were found or the response rate. Findings are reported as %ages to 2 decimal places without giving Ns.
The questionnaire used is not provided, but from Qs reported seems to have been very basic indeed, lacking depth, and with acquiescence bias built in – e,g, is parental involvement important (fig 2 p 26), need to train staff in working with families (fig 5 p 30) and some findings do not make sense l – e.g 100% responded yes/no/sometimes to a Q on communication with families re school objectives.
Given an ill-designed data collection instrument, the resulting findings are simplistic (in sum, school/parental links are important and heads play a key role in fostering these links), and do not fulfil the claims for the study made on pp 6-7. Overall the paper does not advance our understanding of this topic.
Although the paper is potentially interesting the research methods and argument do not stand up . I recommend that you revise the paper and the methodology. At the moment the questionnaire is ethically questionable in terms of bias. The Claims of the study made on page 7 do not stand up.
29 freelancers are bidding on average £384 for this job
Hi friend, I believe that you are in the right place. I wish to pledge my top notch experience in conducting research in a bid to provide flawless work.
Hey, I can edit this PhD thesis based on both reviewer's comments, I have an experience of more than 2 years as an academic writer Please text so that we can discuss this further Thanks, Olive