What if SCI papers are rejected? I submitted my SCI paper hopefully, but I received many revisions from reviewers, and the publication date of SCI paper was confusing.

We should know that the reviewers of international core journals are mostly authoritative scholars in various fields. SCI Periodical Publishing Society often consults the editorial board to select the best peer review team. Reviewers are unpaid, and most of them are extremely serious. Therefore, we should respect the opinions of peer review, carefully analyze every criticism and suggestion, and modify SCI papers accordingly. You should be extremely cautious about your own incorrect opinions, answer them seriously, and discuss them rationally with the reviewers.

It is often a difficult problem for the author. The reasons for rejection must be analyzed here.

The first kind of rejection is a kind of "complete rejection". Editor-in-chief usually expresses personal opinions and never wants to see such articles again. There is no point in sending such an article again.

One is that the article contains some useful data and information, and the editor-in-chief rejects such articles because there are serious defects in the data or analysis. The authors of such articles might as well put it aside until they find more extensive evidence to support or a clearer conclusion, and then send the revised "new" articles to the same magazine. The editor-in-chief will usually consider accepting this kind of article again.

Take peer review opinions seriously and respond politely.

Unless the academic editorial board likes your paper very much and is determined to accept its publication, most international high-level magazines will take every criticism of the reviewers seriously and ask the authors to make necessary changes. In most cases, the revised draft should meet with the reviewers again and be re-evaluated. It is unrealistic and impossible to hope that the editorial board and reviewers will hold high and light. It is precisely because this process is too lengthy and even consumes too much energy of examiners and authors that some scholars believe that it should be reformed.

MBio, a new interdisciplinary journal of the American Society for Microbiology, said that all papers that need major revision will not be accepted, lest authors and reviewers be tired of coping. But this practice is not the mainstream at present, so it is important to show sincerity to the editorial board and reviewers and make them feel that you have made great efforts to improve the quality of your paper.

Establish a friendly communication mode with reviewers.

Never argue with the reviewer, it is very unwise. If the reviewer's opinion is correct, it goes without saying, just do it directly. If it is not correct, there is no need to be sarcastic in your reply. Just make it clear calmly. We are all young people, all warm-blooded young people. Of course, we are not happy to be photographed, let alone photographed by mistake.

In particular, some students who are authoritative tutors in the industry are already very upset to see that the first trial result is a major rather than a minor. It's rare to catch the reviewer's tail and want to drag him out and kill him. For example, a reviewer's suggestion is to add two references (probably the reviewer's own article), and the author wrote in his reply that making references is not charity! This kind of words that make the commentator lose face will cause the commentator's disgust. As a result, as everyone thought, this manuscript was naturally rejected. Although it was later revised through editing and mediation, wasn't it the author's own time that was delayed?

Reasonably grasp the discretion of revision and argue with reason.

The so-called modification is to modify and supplement the content of the article, and the so-called rebuttal is to reply to the reviewer in a reply. There is a lot to do in this, and the central idea is to change it well, and argue with the judges about who is not good or does not want to change it.

For grammar, spelling mistakes, substitution of some words, further explanation of some formulas and charts, and other relatively easy modifications, we must completely follow the peer review opinions. For those things that can't be changed, such as the lack of new ideas and innovations, tasks that can't be completed in a short time, such as comparing with algorithms A, B, C and D, and supplementing a lot of experiments, we need a well-founded argument.

When you argue, you must first make sure that the reviewer is right and his method is good, but the focus of this article is blabla, which is different from what he said. Then, in order to show respect for the reviewers, a symbolic discussion was added to the text, which not only took care of the reviewers' face, but also explained the past when editing.

Finally, all the questions raised in the review comments must be answered seriously one by one.

Even if the opinions of the two reviewers are repeated, they should be answered in detail separately. The judges' questions should be clearly distinguished from our responses. All shortcomings should be corrected one by one, and all praises should be thanked one by one.

As long as you patiently take the time to seriously discuss with the reviewers and stick to the end, SCI papers will always have a chance to be published, and at the same time, you have established a good relationship with reviewers and editors, so that the papers will be well cited internationally after publication.