When a paper goes through a long peer review process, the suggestions of reviewers and editors will determine whether a paper will stay or not. Papers often encounter feedback from rejection, overhaul and minor repairs, but behind the written opinions of reviewers and editors, what is the corresponding background knowledge and attitude towards the manuscript is still full of uncertainty. Therefore, we will briefly sort out the opinions of peer review, hoping to bring some basic understanding to researchers.

"Overhaul"-Major Revision

On the whole, getting a big revision is worth celebrating. After all, there are more opportunities for articles than rejection. Compared with minor repairs, the main difference lies in the degree of modification and the modified processing flow. Generally, minor revisions can be directly reviewed by editors, while major revisions refer to changes and repairs to the main contents of articles, and then submitted for review (by the same reviewers). Of course, different journals will have different definitions of major/minor revisions. In many cases, it is up to the editor to decide whether to send the repaired manuscript.

If the first round of submission is a public expression of "free play", then the second round of submission is a "propositional composition" on how to attack and defend with reviewers, which is of course more challenging. The major revision focuses on attitude, diligence and debating ability. How to correct, effectively and maintain a good attitude to revise and reply directly determines the success rate of the next round of review. During the period of major revision, the editor will put forward a series of questions and opinions on the manuscript. The number of questions raised by each reviewer ranges from a few to a dozen. In most cases, these questions and comments will not be friendly, simple and easy to answer. Authors often reject manuscripts directly because they don't pay attention to revision and reply to revision opinions hastily. At this time, you need to master a skill-grasp the key points. Understand what the reviewers want you to do most, respect the reviewers' opinions, revise them one by one, and try to highlight innovative ideas. In this way, reviewers can see that your paper has changed a lot and it is easier to be hired.

What opinions do reviewers usually give in the stage of major revision? Here are some frequently used scenarios for your reference:

0 1. Literature citation needs to be increased.

In the review comments, reviewers sometimes recommend some documents for reference. These recommended documents sometimes reflect the reviewers' views on the manuscript, and also help to expand and supplement the articles and papers;

02. The quality of papers needs to be improved.

Sometimes, in order to improve the processing efficiency, editors and chief editors often have stricter requirements on the quality of papers, so even some minor problems will eventually be overhauled. This is to improve the quality of review and make the paper in one step. Therefore, in this case, the format and grammar must be carefully revised, without letting go of any opinions;

03. The experimental content needs to be expanded.

In the reviewer's view, it is often a question of the amount of experimental data. Conditional authors can give the manuscript more flesh and blood through many experiments, and carefully give data analysis and conclusions; If there is not enough time to increase the content of the experiment, other problems need to be carefully revised, and the reasons for not increasing the experiment (such as difficulty in arranging supplementary experiments and pressing graduation time) need not be added. There will be explanations so that the editor-in-chief, editors and reviewers will not be too entangled in this issue; Meanwhile. The author can also sort out the existing related research results to explain the relevant information of supplementary experiments;

04. Subjective opinions are inconsistent

If a commentator's point of view is unacceptable, then the question or criticism may lack academic rigor. You need to respond in detail and put forward strong arguments to refute and explain on the basis of respecting others, so that your views can be accepted by editors and chief editors. Be sure to avoid resubmitting whatever you want, which will not only leave a bad impression on the reviewers, but also lead to the publication of the paper. Of course, if there is no opinion, honestly modifying it is the most correct choice.

05. There are too many contents to be revised, and time is pressing.

If the author is pressed for time and can't catch up with the overhaul, he can also consider switching to other journals, but it is not recommended to choose blindly, because even switching to other journals is likely to face overhaul. Therefore, it is suggested that he actively revise the paper after submitting the manuscript, receive opinions on overhaul, and try to avoid switching to periodicals.