When responding to reviewers' comments, all questions must be addressed point by point without omission. Try to meet the experimental requirements suggested in the comments, and if unable to do so, provide reasonable reasons for not being able to. The literature recommended by the reviewers must be cited and discussed thoroughly. Before resubmitting the revised manuscript, make sure to double-check the corrections made in the original draft.

If agreeing with the modifications suggested by the editor, simply accept the changes. If disagreeing, write down your reasons below the annotations and provide feedback to the editor. In case of conflicting opinions, negotiate further

(0) 讚！ | 维尔娜菲茨杰拉德

If conditions allow, try to supplement the experiment as much as possible. If it is really impossible, then seriously consider the reasons for defense, but a humble and cautious attitude is essential. After all, there is a certain rejection rate for major revisions

(0) 讚！ | 维尔娜菲茨杰拉德

The reviewers requested that I supplement the experiment, but my samples have been used up/experiment has ended. Will my paper be rejected if I directly say that my samples have been used up?

(0) 讚！ | 平原文波

What is the difference between responding to reviewer comments and responding to editor comments?

(0) 讚！ | 北国博达

Exact time taken for the first review was 2.5 months. The review was reasonable and it took me 2 weeks to complete the revisions. The second review took another 1 month after which the paper was accepted.

(1) 讚！ | phadnismilind@gmail.com

Overall, the situation looks quite positive. It's close to 3 points this year, which is much higher than last year. It should reach 3 points next year

(0) 讚！ | 凌霄高洁