After the article enters the review process, the results are nothing more than four situations: overhaul, minor repair, rejection and acceptance. Minor repairs and reception are the best endings (minor repairs are basically equivalent to reception). 40% of the papers were received after the overhaul. However, quite a few papers will be rejected. How to modify the rejection of SCI papers? This is a problem that puzzles researchers. After a large number of authors received the rejection news, many authors thought that the reviewers' opinions were reasonable, but the time was not allowed to be modified and they directly switched to other journals. This is very unreasonable. You should know that rejected papers will get similar comments after other reviewers try. It is better to start revising after receiving the rejection letter and solve the problem as soon as possible. Furthermore, sometimes commentators' opinions are not reasonable, so they can defend themselves appropriately. Therefore, most SCI papers can be rejected in the following ways: 1. If the article is rejected due to serious defects in data or analysis, such as insufficient sample size, etc. This kind of article can be put aside for a while, and then the revised article can be submitted to the corresponding journal after finding more extensive evidence to support it or having a clearer conclusion. Journal editors will consider accepting it again. Some authors are lucky enough to think that reviewers may not find data or analysis deficiencies after changing journals. This probability is very small, after all, the data processing and analysis methods of the paper determine the reliability of the results. 2. If the rejected paper is not lack of data or analysis, but lack of importance or innovation. Then, the author should carefully consider the opinions of the reviewers and seriously revise them, and try to switch to journals with lower impact factors. Different journals have different requirements for the innovation of papers, so it is necessary for authors to know their own publishing requirements before submitting papers, thus shortening the period of receiving papers. 3. If the manuscript is rejected because the reviewer is unfair in reviewing the manuscript, the author can plead politely. Reviewers may make mistakes when putting on shoes and opening cats, not because of their professional knowledge, but because sometimes editors of journals may not find expert reviewers in the author's field. Even if their comments seem unprofessional, we should defend them politely. If the author disagrees with the negation, he can put forward his own opinions to the editor or chief editor. As long as you are right, you should stick to it. This is the meaning of learning itself. Express your views tactfully in your reply. If the editor agrees with the author, the paper can re-enter a new round of peer review. 4. Find the reason from yourself and make a serious revision. Most of the author's refusals stem from the unreasonable structure of the article, which leads to the lack of prominent significance. After rejection, focus on adjusting the structure of the article. Especially in the discussion part, many authors' discussions are a restatement of the results, but in fact, writing discussions should be the same as shopping, paying attention to shopping around. Only by comparing our own data with previous results can we highlight the advantages of this study. This requires the author to read more relevant literature and explore the relationship between other studies and this study.