Should each reviewer thank each reviewer separately at the beginning?

Isn't that interesting?? Don't be so angry. Isn't it fun to talk to people like that?

It is estimated that the appeal function is high, and the attempt is lacking, both understand the focus of the article, which is detailed, to explain the situation, and strive for persuasion, and say that the revision of the review and focus of the article before writing the article knows that there are problems, don't report it.

I also overhauled a reviewer in the first instance, and added a reviewer in the second instance, and the reviewer in the first instance had no opinion.

The new reviewers commented on my changes to the article and asked a few minor questions.

After writing, the manuscript must be submitted to journals and magazines for publication, and at this time, it must be reviewed to decide whether it is suitable for publication. The journal network tells you that the review cycle is different, and the core-level journal has the longest review time, and the time is approximate.

After writing, the manuscript must be submitted to journals and magazines for publication, and at this time, it must be reviewed to decide whether it is suitable for publication. The journal network tells you that the review cycle is different, the core level journal review time is the longest, the time is about 3-6 months, and due to other reasons may be delayed, the national or provincial general journal is generally about a week, and the review time of other levels of journals is generally a month.

The Japanese. A slap in the face to him is the best thank you.

The complex of the state and the nation does not hinder the friendship between the people, and it should have the bearing of a great power.

Thank you for arranging the review and for the valuable comments from the reviewers.

The author has carefully answered the questions one by one according to the reviewer's requirements, and has carefully revised the article, and all changes in the article are highlighted.

Because of your suggestions, the revised article is better and the reader can get more valuable information.

Thanks again and reviewers for their help.

Although the content of the cover letter is also polite, it will be much more comfortable to look at the reviewer. Reviewers, in particular, need to carefully review articles without compensation, and it is commendable that they also need to find out the shortcomings. Even if sometimes they have questions that are a bit amateurish because the research direction is not very consistent, or they are more polite when they give their opinions, you must respect them when replying to the reviewers' comments.

ThirdSome reviewers have different research directions from the article, or do not read the article carefully, resulting in a wrong understanding of the article, thus raising some inexplicable questions. When answering these questions, you can first quote the relevant sentence of the article and then point out the real meaning of the article. Then he admitted that there was a problem with his expression, which made the reviewer misinterpret the meaning, and finally pointed out that the sentence had been rewritten and the meaning expressed was more accurate.

FourthIf you encounter a very difficult question to answer, such as the reviewer questioning the limited innovation of the article, it is of little value. These are the flaws of the article, and there is no way to modify them. It is certainly not good to agree with the reviewer's opinion, but it is even worse not to answer in an evasive way, which is both rude and sideways to agree with the reviewer.

Although this question is difficult to answer, it is still necessary to try to try for it, such as emphasizing a few more relevant sentences in the article. You must know that everyone's opinions are different, although a reviewer feels that it is not meaningful, but the decision is in the hands after all, as long as you still feel that the article has merit after synthesizing the opinions of multiple reviewers, there is no problem. The response letter is visible to all reviewers, and honest answers will win the favor of other reviewers.

Fifth, the question that often arises in the reviewer's comments is to ask for additional information, such as more experimental results or some additional information related to the article. This is a question that needs to be carefully considered, and if it is just the reviewer's own curiosity, he or she may choose to provide it in the response letter rather than add it directly to the article. And if it is useful to all readers, it needs to be added to the article.

If the reviewer makes an unreasonable suggestion, you can calmly find an objective reason to politely reject or provide some reference materials, so as not to make the reviewer feel that you are turning a blind eye to his problem.