Recently, I saw some medical graduate students and clinicians in the circle spit out some reviewers, because the reviewers asked for supplementary clinical sample sequencing results and related functional experiments as soon as they came up, and refused to submit them if they didn't. Seeing such a review opinion, the author is undoubtedly lost and angry, but he can only be helpless. Originally, there was no scientific research funding, and I just wanted to develop a pure learning letter data mining of 1-2 to meet graduation or professional title evaluation. Results As soon as the reviewers came up, they asked for supplementary experiments. Without the relevant scientific research funds and experimental equipment, there is no way to realize this revision. If there are relevant research funds and conditions, it is estimated that the author will not choose a journal with a score of 1-2, but a higher-level journal.

Every pure SCI paper will have a different fate, because different journals contribute and different reviewers meet. If you are unlucky, if you meet a strong reviewer like the above, you will ignore the rest of the article and let the experiment be supplemented directly, and the article will inevitably be rejected. Many authors want to scold the reviewer after receiving such comments, but they can't directly reply to the email to scold the reviewer. Instead, you should answer the questions of the reviewers politely and honestly explain that you don't have the relevant funds and conditions to supplement the relevant experiments. In case they meet reviewers and editors who can understand your actual situation, maybe people will go easy on you.

It is normal for pure credit data mining to encounter supplementary experiments. After all, there are too many articles on pure credit, and the competition is very great. Journals certainly prefer articles with experimental verification. Sometimes these people just want to scold the reviewers. They used to do basic scientific research, and all the relevant research experiments were done. The research funds cost 7788 yuan, but suddenly they met the requirements of reviewers for additional experimental demonstration or increasing the sample size. As we all know, adding more experiments or increasing the sample size will make the research conclusion more reliable. The question is whether everyone has such conditions. Without conditions, it is impossible to complete the revision opinions of reviewers.

Every year, there are such a group of medical graduate students and clinicians. They have no research group, no research funds and no guidance, but they want to publish relevant SCI. Therefore, these people tend to choose pure original information or meta-analysis (this research is less, after all, many units do not recognize meta-analysis now). When you meet these powerful reviewers or editors who want to supplement the experiment, what you need to do is to honestly explain that you don't have the relevant funds and conditions to supplement the relevant experiment, and then pray silently, hoping that the reviewers or editors can be merciful. People who don't understand don't understand the difficulty of having no resources to do scientific research, let alone the pain of delaying graduation. Instead of cursing the reviewers a thousand times in your mind, leave some energy to pray and let the fate of the article be decided by luck.