– The paper says interviews were conducted from September 2023 to November 2025, but the manuscript was received 13 July 2025 and ethics approval is CUHK SBRE-24-0599. How could data collected after July 2025 be included in a manuscript received in July 2025? Was ethics approval obtained after data collection began in September 2023? Please clarify exact dates and approval timeline.
– The text states “All participants were based on Project 985 universities, and three in Project 211 universities.” Since Project 985 is a subset of Project 211, this is logically contradictory. Table 1 also does not identify which participants are 985 or 211, so the claim cannot be verified. Please correct.
– The abstract and findings present three strategic logics, but the Conclusion says “two main logics” and then lists three, followed by “Both logics.” Please correct the count and wording.
– The paper cites Wang et al. (2023) and Ayoobzadeh (2023) as evidence for peer co-authorship, but those studies concern peer support and peer-mentoring, respectively.
– The Discussion says publication profile is “objectified cultural capital” and institution reputation is “institutionalized cultural capital.” In Bourdieu, institutionalized cultural capital refers to academic credentials, not institutional reputation; the latter is closer to symbolic capital.
– The paper adds “psychological capital” alongside Bourdieu’s economic, cultural, social, symbolic, and scientific capital. Bourdieu did not theorize psychological capital. What is the theoretical basis for inserting it into his framework?
– Page 16 has an incomplete sentence: “Compared to senior scholars contexts, they may face greater challenges in 2023).” Also “ResearchExcellence” lacks a space; Table 1 uses “Economic” instead of “Economics”; and “Author contributions” is misspelled as “uthor contributions.”
