Why are most of the review opinions of domestic experts so simple and almost perfunctory?

Summary. 1. First of all, I would like to express my gratitude to the experts for their valuable comments for the review. 2. Secondly, it is necessary to express respect for experts and affirm their professional knowledge and rich experience; 3. Thirdly, it is necessary to express appreciation to the experts for their careful preparation and careful review of the review; 4. Finally, I would like to express my respect to the experts and thank them for their valuable advice and guidance for the reviewers.

1. First of all, we should express our gratitude to the experts and thank them for their valuable comments for the reviewers. 2. Secondly, it is necessary to express respect for experts and affirm their professional knowledge and rich experience; 3. Thirdly, it is necessary to express the appreciation of the experts and their careful preparation and careful review of the review; 4. Finally, I would like to express my respect for the experts and thank them for their valuable suggestions and guidance for the reviewers.

I'm still a little confused, can you be more detailed?

At the outset, I would like to thank the experts for their valuable advice, whose guidance and recommendations have been important in guiding our work. Second, we found that the problem was due to a lack of in-depth knowledge and a lack of adequate consideration of the actual situation. Therefore, we should strengthen the learning of relevant knowledge, and fully consider the actual situation in the practical and simple operation, so as to better complete the work.

Finally, I would like to put forward some personal tips, that is, in the actual operation of blocking acres, we should think more, balance and summarize, accumulate more, and practice more, so as to better complete the work.

Of course, the manuscript will be rejected if the review comments are not corrected well, but you can convince him to prove that your article has no shortcomings. Authors can reject reviewers' revisions, but the reasons must be sufficient and convincing, and whether or not the manuscript will be rejected depends on how to decide.

1.Respond politely to reviewers' comments.

Whether they are dissatisfied with the revisions given, or how sharp or rude the reviewers are, the author should refrain from having a good demeanor. Use polite language when responding to reviewers' comments.

2.Don't rush to refute.

Even if the research direction is the same, there may be some deviations or different understandings of the same thing and the same problem. In replying to the reviewer, you must first express your affirmation, and then explain the reason for your own description. When replying, you must be concise and concise, and you should not cause many questions because of one question.

3.It cannot be vetoed in its entirety.

Not being able to completely reject a reviewer's revisions will only make things bad and unfinished. Before explaining that the author needs to make appropriate revisions and reasonable defenses, you should first understand how the reviewers comment on it, and find out why the doubts come from and why.

After the hard work of sending out the sci** of our own writing, we will generally receive a letter later. The letter will tell you the result of your submission. In the letter, there will also be comments from the reviewer on the revision of the SCI**.

Here's what we need to do:

In the face of the revisions, we should adopt a three-step strategy: 1Citations, 2Commitment to the future, 3Have a discussion.

Many people ignore reviewers and comments or switch to other journals, but this is not advisable.

Most of the reviewers of international core journals are authoritative scholars in various fields, and the magazine publisher often consults the editorial board to select the best reviewer team. Reviewers are unpaid, and most of the reviewers are extremely serious about their work. Therefore, we should be very respectful of the reviewers' comments, carefully analyze each criticism and suggestion, and revise accordingly**.

How to deal with the magazine's rejection is a difficult problem for authors. Here it is necessary to analyze the reasons for the rejection. The first type of rejection is "complete rejection", and the editor-in-chief usually expresses an opinion that he never wants to see this kind of article again, and it makes no sense to send this kind of article again; The second is that the article contains some useful data and information, and the editor-in-chief rejects it because the data or analysis is seriously flawed, so it is advisable to put the article aside until there is broader evidence to support it or to reach a clearer conclusion, and then send the revised "new" article to the same journal, and the editor-in-chief will usually consider re-accepting the article.

If you are rejected by one journal and then sent to another journal in its original form, and the reviewer is invited to review again, you will be very disgusted by this and will be rejected as a matter of course. "It's a terrible mistake to be rejected by one magazine and sent to another without revision. Usually, the reviewer does a very serious job of pointing out the problems of ** and suggesting changes; If the author ignores these pieces of advice, it is a real waste of time and effort; At the same time, sending a bad article is a serious damage to the author's scientific prestige.

The standards and requirements for the acceptance of ** by journals with different impact factors vary widely. If the rejection** is not due to errors in the manuscript, but rather not to be important or innovative enough, the author may send it to a journal with a lower impact factor after carefully considering the reviewer's comments and carefully revising the manuscript.

It is important to note that it is not uncommon for reviewers to make mistakes in judgment and recommend rejection due to knowledge limitations, certain stereotypes, or even different academic views.