If only minor or minor changes are needed, they should be carefully revised before release. If you suggest making major changes, you should calm down and give a comprehensive and serious consideration to the article and the suggestions made. Generally, there may be the following situations: First, if the reviewers find that there are serious problems in the manuscript and their opinions are correct, they should listen to the reviewers' opinions and modify the manuscript accordingly. Second, reviewers or editors may also have serious misunderstandings about the manuscript. If the author thinks that the reviewer's criticism is completely wrong, there are two solutions. One of SCI papers is to throw the manuscript into another publication, hoping to get a fair and reasonable review; The second is to contribute to the journal again, and defend the reviewer's point of view one by one with the materials or arguments you have mastered (don't use hostile words), hoping to send the manuscript to other reviewers for re-evaluation. If two reviewers misunderstand the author's statement at the same time, the author needs to carefully find out the reasons for the problem or misunderstanding and correct it, and then send it to journals or other publications. Be sure to take seriously the revision opinions put forward by reviewers or editors, attach a revision letter when returning the revised draft, and answer all the questions put forward by reviewers or editors one by one; References recommended by evaluators must be cited (the authors of these documents are likely to be evaluators) and thoroughly discussed; If the author thinks that the revision proposal put forward by the reviewer or editor is unreasonable, he must be able to stick to his opinion without compromise, but he must have sufficient reasons. If the author receives the rejection letter, he should read it carefully and decide how to deal with it. First, completely reject the manuscript (that is, the editor no longer considers the manuscript). In this case, it is meaningless to contribute to the same publication or defend it. If there are serious problems in the manuscript, it is best not to change it to other publications, so as not to affect the author's reputation. If there is something worth keeping in the manuscript, you can rewrite it as a brand-new article and then try to resubmit it. Second, the manuscript contains some useful information, but some information is wrong. First of all, read the manuscript carefully, review the comments and confirm whether there are serious errors in the data. If there are serious defects, we should make up them seriously (such as correcting mistakes, supplementing extensive and powerful evidence and clear conclusions) and then resubmit them. If you think there is an error in reviewing the manuscript, you'd better not contribute to the same journal again. Unless you can convincingly prove the editor, you'd better consider contributing to other similar journals. Thirdly, the manuscript is basically acceptable except for some defects in the experiment. The author can make necessary amendments according to the reviewers' opinions, and the SCI paper will be submitted to this journal again. If important revisions (or partial rewrites) are made according to the reviewers' opinions, the revised draft may be resubmitted or even accepted.