How to correctly reply to SCI reviewers comments?

Do you know how to respond to reviewers' comments?

SCI Submission: How to Review.

How to sci** reviewer (or write a reply letter) is an art, and we will give more examples.

Foreign reviewers are obligated and are free to submit opinions and suggestions based on the quality of the article and their own opinions. The vast majority of foreign reviewers are rigorous in their studies and pay great attention to reputation, so it can be said that they take reputation as their life. When they are asked to review, they will decline if they are busy or don't understand your major or field.

However, as long as the liquid agrees to review, it is generally due diligence to complete the review task. Therefore, when you receive comments from reviewers, the first thing to do is to put your mind right and stay calm. Don't use the mentality of "prejudice" to conclude that reviewers are "biased" and "discriminatory".

It's really hard to do research, and it's really hard to publish sci**. But reviewers are also very hard and not easy. They read your essay seriously and give you pertinent advice and even good hail advice.

If you are still blamed for your strong wording, no one will be angry. You know, it's not a hard thing to find a reason to reject an article. Therefore, at this time, you must calm down, analyze and understand the reviewer's opinions, and find out where the problem lies.

1.All questions must be article by article; 2.Try to meet the experiments that need to be supplemented in the opinions; 3.

If you can't be satisfied, don't avoid it, and explain the reasonable reasons why you can't do it; 4。For opinions that you disagree with, you should also be tactful and skillful, and be reasonable, evidence-based and responsible; 5.The literature recommended by the reviewer must be cited and discussed.

From the compilation of the compilation.

The revisions of SCI journals include major repairs and minor repairs. There are many things that need to be revised for an overhaul, and the cycle for articles to be received may be delayed. Minor repairs give the impression that they can be received with minor modifications.

This is relatively speaking, major repairs can quickly enter minor repairs, and in rare cases, minor repairs may also be postponed to accept, or even unexpectedly - rejection! Don't be discouraged when it comes to overhauls, it's normal! Another aspect should come to mind:

Reply to the opinions of different reviewers one by one, penetrating into every detail. Of course, it is also important to note that no amendments have been proposed. If you find a grammatical or content error, fix it as soon as possible.

If there are test loopholes, they should also be supplemented in a timely manner. Don't leave anything to chance. Perhaps the reviewer does not feel the need to add additional experiments, but in a responsible manner, if the researcher feels that it is necessary to add experiments, then they can add this aspect when revising, so as to give people a professional feeling.

Reviewers and editors of journals are likely to be impressed by your professionalism. After the overhaul, you need to look at the state, if the overhaul is still overhauled, then it can be carefully modified, if it cannot be carried out to the minor repair. The next step is likely to be rejection.

Of course, it is not excluded that it will be revised and published after careful revision. This means that your article is within the scope of their publication, but the content has not been modified to their expectations. If you can enter the minor repair, then you can breathe a sigh of relief, after all, it is not far from being accepted.

I was lucky to get a reply from Xiaoxiu. But some people have the experience of having two minor repairs.

To put it bluntly, it is to be carried away by victory. I think "small repairs can sit back and relax"! In fact, minor repairs should pay more attention to the content of details, those who have experienced two minor repairs, that is, the details are not considered in place.

It is recommended that revisions should be given the same importance as overhauls. Re-modify**, you can even give it to other peers to modify, put forward other modifications, expose all the problems, and return them to after revising them. When replying to the email, we told the other party that we had not only made changes to the proposed changes, but also re-edited other areas that we felt were not appropriate (please note that the re-revisions should be explained in the reply email).

Because the revisions given by the journal are all given by him and the reviewers. So his email is nothing more than stating the comments given by the reviewers, and then asking you to make corresponding changes according to their changes. When writing an email, it is recommended that you do not easily write that we have carefully modified the ** and other words, in case of being found again and again obvious mistakes, wouldn't it be your own signboard.

The first thing to do is to thank the anonymous reviewer for their revisions, especially for their constructive comments. Of course, thanks too. Then reply to each of the revisions one by one.

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.

FifthThe question that often arises in the reviewers' 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.

When I was in the hand to submit a journal and magazine, I was lucky to accept it directly, and it was not bad if I could accept it with minim revision, and basically I could meet the requirements by adjusting the layout and changing the text. However, if you encounter accept with major revision, you must not be discouraged, because the opportunity still exists, and the so-called major repair may generally lack the necessary experimental or proof support, and the convincing power is not enough. The opportunity to revise is also because they read the content of the Chinese chapter, so be sure to revise carefully according to the reviewer's comments.

It's been a rewarding process. But if you are really unfortunate enough to encounter reject, don't be discouraged, study the reviewers' opinions well, usually their opinions are still very professional and pertinent, and then revise them one by one and then launch a new round of attack on the journal or other journals, hehe

Today, I learned some experience on the little wood worm about replying to the reviewer's comments, and I think it makes sense, so I took it to TX to see it for more attention. In fact, when replying to the reviewer's comments, in addition to writing down the revisions, there are some things that must be written. Differing opinions from reviewers should also be skillful.

First of all, no matter what comments the reviewer makes, when you reply, the first sentence must say: "Thank you for your suggestions, your suggestions are very important, they have important guiding significance for my ** writing and scientific research work!" ”

Thirdly, if the reviewer has made a comment that you can't do for the time being (e.g., asking you to add or improve the experiment, etc.). Well, in order to publish as soon as possible, you have to refuse such a request. But don't put up a whole bunch of reasons to justify that this idea is not easy to achieve.

You should say: "Thank you for your advice, it is very important, because of your advice, I have found the shortcomings in my current work, I will follow your suggestions in my future work to improve the level of scientific research and achieve more results!" In this way, you politely rejected the reviewer's opinion, and made the reviewer feel that you value his opinion very much.

Fourth, if the reviewer's comments are clearly problematic. Then there is no way, you have to argue with reason. However, you must not say:

Mr. Reviewer, I think your opinion is wrong! "You don't have to make any comments about his opinion, just list your reasons and evidence, and don't end by emphasizing that your point of view is correct. To put it simply, "neither say you are right, nor say I am right, the evidence speaks".

I still agree with the above four points, and they are very useful. It's also easy for people to understand, it's to make your text come alive, and if you're a reviewer, you'll feel comfortable.

Do you know how to reply to the comments of the reviewer of the Sullen Yuan Lu.

Do you know how to respond to reviewers' comments?

I usually praise first, then explain, and then reply to explain and supplement the necessary information according to the comments, if there is no information, just say that the matter you mentioned is something we are working on, and the relevant results will continue to be announced in the future.

And so it goes. Generally passed.

Do you know how to respond to reviewers' comments?

2.Try to meet the experiments that need to be supplemented in the opinions;

3.If you can't be satisfied, don't avoid it, and explain the reasonable reasons why you can't do it;

4.The literature recommended by the reviewer must be cited and discussed thoroughly.

5.The four points that the teacher said are indeed very reasonable. However, the experiments that the reviewer proposes to supplement can still be explained, if not necessary. I have also reviewed for foreign magazines, and sometimes even if the reviewer wants to accept your article, he always returns.

To bring up some shortcomings, if the article does not have those shortcomings, maybe the article will be voted for a higher IF magazine.

So, if you really don't want to supplement the experiment or it's difficult to supplement, you can explain it reasonably, and it's generally fine.

Foreign magazines asked for supplementary experiments, and I passed the test with explanations, and the reasons are less posted). And also because: very few magazines.

Send your revised draft back to the original reviewer, unless specifically requested by the reviewer. Doesn't necessarily understand your stuff, he.

The test is limited to general magazines.