The revision opinions of SCI journals are nothing more than major repairs and minor supplements. There are many things that need to be revised in overhaul, and the delivery cycle may be delayed. Moreover, the feeling of minor repairs and small suppliers is that they can accept it with a little modification. This is relative, overhaul can quickly enter minor repairs, and in rare cases minor repairs may be delayed or even unexpected-rejected! Don't lose heart in the event of overhaul, it's normal! We should think of another aspect: at least the manuscript has not been rejected, which shows that it still has the significance of revision. This research has not been done in vain, which is worth celebrating! There will be many changes in the overhaul article, so I suggest you reply one by one. Respond to the opinions of different judges one by one and penetrate into every detail. Of course, we should also pay attention to the content that has not been modified. If you find mistakes in grammar or content, you should correct them as soon as possible. If there are exam loopholes, they should be supplemented in time. Don't take chances. Perhaps the reviewers don't think it is necessary to supplement the experiment, but in a responsible attitude, if the researchers think it is necessary to supplement the experiment, they can add this content in the revision, giving people a professional feeling. Reviewers and editors of journals are likely to be moved by your professionalism. After the overhaul, it depends on the state. If it is still an overhaul after the overhaul, it must be seriously revised. If minor repairs are not possible. The next step is probably to reject the manuscript. Of course, it is not excluded to enter the state of minor repairs and small publications after careful revision. The significance of this is that your article is in line with the scope of their publication, but the content has not been revised to their expectations. If you can get into a minor repair, you can relax a little. After all, it is not far from being admitted. It's lucky to get a reply from Xiao Xiu. But some people have this experience: after two minor repairs. To put it bluntly, you are carried away by victory. I think "minor repairs can rest easy"! In fact, minor repairs should pay more attention to details. Minor repairs were made twice, but the details were not considered comprehensively. It is suggested that the transformation should be paid as much attention as overhaul. Revise the paper again, even give it to other colleagues for revision, put forward other suggestions for revision, expose all the problems, revise them together, and return them to the editor. When replying to the e-mail, inform the other party that we have not only revised the place where we proposed the revision, but also retouched other places that we feel are not appropriate (please explain the revised contents in the reply e-mail). Because the revision opinions given by the journal editor are all given by his own comprehensive reviewers. So his email is nothing more than stating the opinions given by the reviewers, and then asking you to make corresponding changes according to their amendments. When writing an email, I suggest that you don't easily write something like "We have carefully revised the paper". If anyone finds an obvious mistake again, it's your own fault. When replying, first of all, I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their revision opinions, especially the constructive opinions. Of course, thanks to the editor. Then reply one by one according to the revised opinions.