There are many authors who submit ei papers in China. From conception to formal submission, it takes a lot of time and energy, but after submission, you can't relax completely, because there may be major or minor repairs at this stage. Generally speaking, ei How many days does it take to revise the paper after submission? In this issue, the editor will share relevant knowledge with you.

The time required for modification is given according to the degree of modification, for example: 7 days for minor repairs, 30 days for major repairs, etc.

Review comments and key points of answering skills are shared with you:

(1) Insufficient Novelty (one of the common reasons for low scores)

Generally speaking, the shortcomings of Novelty mainly include three aspects: 1) There is little difference with other methods; 2) A simple combination of A+B; 3) Extension is not enough (for conference extension journals). Different methods from others do not mean that your article is worthy of publication. It is necessary to highlight the different reasons and his rationale, the benefits brought!

(2) Description errors: unreasonable assumptions, unreasonable language expressions, flawed methods, etc.

The reviewer's description may or may not be correct. In addition, for the doubts about some assumptions in the paper, it can be verified by experiments (verification of the hypothesis is reasonable or the effect of the experiment when the hypothesis is not established) or examples of demonstrations and other ideas.

(3) The effect is not obvious (limited improvement)

The reviewer's criticism effect is not obvious and mainly includes two parts:

1) Compared with myself, some of my components are not significantly improved;

Find evidence that the improvement is obvious in some scenarios, and explain the reasons why the improvement is not obvious in some scenarios.

2) Compared with other methods, the improvement effect is limited.

(4) Insufficient experiment (supplementary experiment)

Questions of this type account for the vast majority of reviewer comments, including various types of experiments. Normally, try to complete the experiments requested by the reviewers as much as possible, especially for journals, the wishes of the reviewers must be respected. In some extreme cases, please explain the reason why the experiment cannot be supplemented.

(5) Grammar, structure, omission of references, etc.

The channel for direct dialogue with senior reviewer (AC or AE), ordinary reviewer is not visible. Generally speaking, it only applies to the reviewers who have some obvious mistakes, such as violating the common sense of the field, contradicting themselves, or being severely extreme.

Today, the relevant knowledge sharing of Xiaobian is here. If you still have doubts or want to know more relevant content, you can pay more attention to the updated content of our website.