After the general paper is submitted, if you are not a super authority in this field, your manuscript is likely to need to be revised no matter how good it is. So this involves how to answer the question of evaluation opinions. Let me talk about how to answer these questions according to the severity of different review opinions:

Accept the paper directly without any modification: this situation is unlikely, but it is not without it. My brother's article was submitted to an IEEE magazine, and the review opinions were nothing. Which means it was recorded directly. The magazine also called it the first time in history and even congratulated it. How small the visible probability is.

Minor revision and re-submission: Many good manuscripts will get this result if there is no abnormality after re-submission. Generally speaking, book reviews say that one part of you is too simple to explain clearly, or that you don't have enough literature. Just look at the evaluation of the judges, and it will be ok if you change it according to the opinions.

Re-submission after slight modification: refers to the situation where the judges disagree. If there are two judges, one feels good and the other feels bad. Three judges, that may be three situations: I) one says yes and the other says no; Ii) Two people said yes, one said no, and iii) Two people said no, but one said yes. In these three cases, the editor may give you a chance to change and vote again. Since at least one of the judges is not very satisfied with your work, how to make these judges change their minds with your practical actions (correction and reply) is indeed a very challenging problem. If the answer is a little poor, you will lose the opportunity.

In view of the situation of the major reform, I want to talk about it according to my experience, hoping to have a good reference for the majority of friends to encounter such problems and improve the hit rate of the manuscript. After all, it is too hard to do research and it is not easy to publish an article.

First of all, we must put our minds right. It should be realized that it is a very happy thing that the article has not been directly rejected, at least it shows that your work is still recognized. At this time, we must calm down, analyze the opinions of the judges and find out the problems. For all judges, as long as they are comments, they need to reply one by one (learned from my teacher). For each opinion, my method is as follows:

Thank you for this suggestion (respect other people's work). English is generally "You are right, ..."; "Thank you for your advice, ..."; "Thank you for your comment, ..." and so on.

Answer this opinion: the ellipsis above is what you want to answer. Answer with facts. If you really can't answer, just tell the truth (don't be afraid, there are other highlights in your paper). Some judges are experts. If we bypass the problem, it is estimated that it will be extremely dangerous.

Make corresponding amendments to the article: this is essential and should be organically combined with answering comments. If you don't change the article, it's still not good. No matter how good the answer is, it is omnipotent. Think about it. If you don't take practical action, how can you impress the big boss (rejecting your reviewer for the first time) and make him change his mind?

Just being reasonable may make my friends feel that my experience is useless, so let me tell you some details about me:

The first time I voted for a magazine: two reviewers, one refused and the other revised. The editor changed it. People who refuse to read my article are not motivated. I was so angry at that time that I thought, "I don't know anything about judging people." I can imagine how strongly I responded to the comments. Fortunately, the boss knew that I was inexperienced and just asked me to write a first draft and then make up my reply. At the same time, he also repaired me and ordered me to correct the paper well. Haha, it was changed for two weeks, and one month after the vote, I was hired without any complaints. "I learned a lot from this incident, saved the boss's polished reply and studied it many times."

Second vote of IEEE Trans: There is no problem with the quality of the manuscript. Therefore, the result is that the first one is satisfactory, but the second one raises many thorny but professional problems. To be honest, I feel headache when I see these problems. It was given a month and a half to revise. I spent three whole weeks thinking about these problems and how to modify the article to meet the needs of this reviewer. The two commentators each put forward eight opinions. In the case of the final draft and defense, the manuscript has been added with 4 pages (including the corresponding supplements made in the experiment and other places), and the defense draft is 15 pages (7 pages and 8 pages). After three months, I finally got a reply, accepted it but made some minor changes (the second reviewer thought my answer was good, but didn't write the content of answering the first reviewer in the manuscript). This shows what a serious reviewer this is. It is estimated that my first reply to the comment was a little inappropriate, and his axe would cut me. )。 Haha, that's easy to handle. Just take out your reply and copy it on paper. I was hired a week later. Happiness. The first batch of IEEE transactions. "To tell you the truth, I am very grateful to this serious reviewer. Under his guidance, the quality of the manuscript has been improved to a new level. I think being a critic should be such a critic. I have a somewhat similar attitude towards reviewing manuscripts. 』

I voted for a cow magazine in Europe: there was no problem with the novelty of the article, but the result was rejected (I am not angry this time). After carefully reading the peer review opinions, it shows that my experiment is not enough to support the method proposed in the paper. Then there was the second reviewer, who thought I didn't quote his article (of course it was very obscure). After seeing the essence of the problem clearly, it will be simple. Do a lot of experiments and make detailed analysis accordingly. In the end, the manuscript changed from 16 to 33 pages, so you can reply about 3 pages. After two weeks, it will be resubmitted and hired two months later, and the number of auditors will be changed from two to three (the first two have not changed).

From the above analysis and my example, it can be seen that if your article is innovative and the reviewers see your innovation, the manuscript can be hired as long as you are good at revising it.

Remind inexperienced friends again: answer all questions scientifically. That is to thank the reviewers and answer all the comments honestly and reasonably. I have been a judge, and I have a sense of honor but it is very hard. I have worked hard to give you advice, and I will be angry if you use tough words later. You know, it is not difficult to find a reason to reject an article.