Although the content of the cover letter is polite, editors and reviewers will look much more comfortable. In particular, reviewers need to carefully review articles for free, and it is commendable to find out the shortcomings. Even if sometimes some of their questions are amateur or impolite when commenting because the research direction is not very consistent, you must respect them when replying to comments.
Second, draft a separate response letter. List the opinions of each reviewer one by one and answer them in the question and answer. Just accept the modification request of the text directly. Some reviewers ask for more citations, perhaps this is the only place where reviewers show selfishness-for example, asking for citations of his articles, even if they are not too outrageous, or making a discount, asking for three citations and adding one at the end. When answering questions, you'd better be concise and practical, and don't drag your feet. Be careful not to cause more questions in order to answer a question, and try to limit the discussion to a limited scope.
Third, some reviewers have different research directions from the article, or have not read the article carefully, which leads to misunderstanding of the article and thus raises some puzzling questions. When answering these questions, you can quote the relevant sentences of the article first, and then point out the true meaning of the article. Then he admitted that there was something wrong with his expression, which made the reviewers misinterpret the meaning. Finally, he pointed out that the sentence has been rewritten to express the meaning more accurately. This kind of answer not only skillfully answers the questions, but also avoids embarrassing the reviewers.
Fourth, if you encounter questions that are difficult to answer, such as the reviewer questioning that the article has limited innovation and little value. These are the wounds of the article, and there is no way to correct them. It is certainly not good to agree with the commentator's point of view, but it is even worse and impolite to avoid answering, and agree with the commentator. Although this question is difficult to answer, we should strive for it, such as emphasizing some related sentences in the article. You know, everyone has a different opinion. Although some reviewers think it is of little significance, the decision is in the hands of the editor after all. As long as the editor still thinks the article is desirable after synthesizing the opinions of many reviewers, there is no problem. The response letter can be seen by all reviewers, and a sincere answer will win the favor of other reviewers.
Fifth, the problem that often appears in the review comments is to ask for supplementary information, such as more experimental results or other information related to the article. Such a problem needs careful consideration. If only the reviewers are curious, they can choose to provide it in the response letter instead of adding it directly to the article. And if it is useful to all readers, it needs to be added to the article. For the unreasonable suggestions put forward by the reviewer, you can calmly find an objective reason to politely refuse or provide some reference materials, and don't let the reviewer feel that you turn a blind eye to his questions.