A Serious Initiative on Earnestly Treating Review Comments and Improving Manuscript Revision Quality

Recently, based on feedback from managing editors, it has been observed that some authors do not attach sufficient importance to expert reviewers’ comments. Although manuscripts have been revised, the revisions are often incomplete, inadequate, and inconsistent with rigorous academic standards. Enhancing the credibility and quality of academic publication relies on authors’ full respect for peer review, rational response, and thorough implementation.
To uphold academic standards, respect the labor of reviewers, improve the quality of academic manuscripts, and promote the rigorous dissemination of academic achievements, we hereby issue the following 20 serious initiatives to all authors and researchers, urging them to effectively implement review comments and conduct manuscript revisions with a rigorous attitude:
●Establish a correct understanding of review comments, clarify that review comments are important guidance for improving manuscript quality rather than negative evaluations, and treat each comment with a modest, rigorous and pragmatic attitude, without perfunctoriness, resistance or neglect.
●Upon receiving the review comments, read them comprehensively at the first time, study each word and sentence carefully, accurately grasp the core demands of each comment, clarify the revision direction, focus and requirements, and avoid one-sided understanding and taking out of context.
●Classify and sort out the review comments, distinguish between three categories: "must be revised", "suggested to be revised" and "need to be explained", clarify the priority of revision, formulate a detailed revision plan, specify the revision time limit and specific measures, and ensure the orderly progress of the revision work.
●For substantive issues pointed out by reviewers (such as logical loopholes, data errors, insufficient argumentation, and deviations in viewpoints), analyze the root causes of the problems one by one, do not avoid or cover up them, put forward specific and feasible revision plans, and rectify them thoroughly without compromise or excuse.
●For the revision suggestions put forward by reviewers, carefully study and judge in combination with the actual situation of the manuscript, fully adopt reasonable suggestions, and if there is any objection, give a clear, sufficient and evidence-based explanation in combination with academic standards and research reality, so as to avoid blind refusal or forced argument.
●In the process of revision, strictly follow academic norms, adhere to academic integrity, do not tamper with data, forge arguments or plagiarize, and ensure that the revised manuscript is true, rigorous and reliable, meeting the requirements of journal publication.
●Pay attention to the logical consistency of the manuscript. In response to problems such as logical confusion and loose structure pointed out by reviewers, re-sort out the manuscript framework, adjust the order of paragraphs, improve the argumentation chain, and ensure that the viewpoints are clear, the arguments are sufficient, the argumentation is rigorous and the levels are clear.
●Strengthen the rigor of data and arguments. Recheck and verify the data sources, statistical methods, experimental design, etc., questioned by reviewers, supplement and improve data support, and ensure that the data are true and accurate, and the arguments are scientific and reasonable, which can stand academic inspection.
●Standardize academic expression, correct grammatical errors, typos, improper use of punctuation marks, non-standard professional terms and other problems in the manuscript, optimize language expression, and ensure accurate wording, smooth sentences, concise expression, and avoid colloquialism and randomness.
●Attach importance to the standardization of literature citation. In response to problems such as non-standard citation, missing citation and incorrect citation pointed out by reviewers, check the literature sources, authors, years, page numbers and other information one by one, supplement necessary literature citations, delete irrelevant and redundant citations, and ensure that the citation format meets the journal requirements.
●In the process of revision, take the initiative to consult the latest research results and academic norms in related fields, supplement and improve the research content in combination with review comments, improve the academic value and innovation of the manuscript, and avoid duplicate research and shallow content.
●Repeatedly check and proofread the revised content, check each paragraph and sentence to see if the revision is in place, if any review comments are omitted, and if any new errors occur, so as to ensure that the revision work is comprehensive, detailed and free of omissions.
●Write a detailed revision explanation (response letter). For each review comment, clearly explain the revision ideas, revision content and revision basis. For unadopted comments, clearly explain the reasons, so as to be logical, sincere and evidence-based, and facilitate reviewers to review.
●After the revision is completed, treat the review link with a prudent attitude. If the reviewer puts forward secondary revision comments, continue to earnestly implement them without impatience or perfunctoriness until the manuscript meets the publication standards.
●Respect the labor achievements of reviewers, understand the professionalism and rigor of the review work, do not urge or complain, take the initiative to cooperate with the work of reviewers and journal editorial departments, and actively respond to relevant questions.
●Strengthen the improvement of their own academic literacy, pay attention to the accumulation of academic knowledge, temper research ability and standardize writing habits in daily life, improve the quality of manuscripts from the source, and reduce basic and common sense problems in review comments.
●Take the initiative to learn from the writing experience and revision ideas of similar excellent manuscripts, reflect on the deficiencies in their own research and writing in combination with review comments, and continuously improve the level of academic research and paper writing, forming a virtuous cycle.
●Do not arbitrarily modify the core viewpoints, research framework and core data not mentioned by reviewers. If it is really necessary to adjust, it should be clearly explained in the revision explanation and revised only after the reviewer's approval, so as to avoid the impact of arbitrary changes on the manuscript quality.
●Uphold a sense of academic awe, take manuscript revision as an important opportunity to improve academic ability and improve research achievements, do not pursue "rapid revision and rapid publication", pay attention to revision quality, and strive to make each manuscript stand the test of academics and time.
●Actively cooperate with the revision requirements of the journal editorial department, strictly complete the revision work in accordance with the journal format specifications and revision time limit, do not delay or shirk, and jointly maintain the publication order and academic quality of academic journals.