Based on the enclosed set of reviews, it is felt that many changes are required before the
manuscript would be acceptable for publication. Additionally, an important point is
raised about the novelty in the proposed work. We urge the authors to positively address the
comments and suggestions provided by the reviewers, without which the paper would not be
suitable for publication. Additionally, with regards to novelty of the proposed work, it is
necessary that the authors put the proposed work in context of the previous literature where
people have used the similar ideas for learning and highlight on how this work is novel
from these prior works (along with comparative assessment as appropriate).

请问一下这种副主编直接表态的，是不是很危险？这种情况一般该怎么入手修改比较好呢？
另外一个问题就是，一个审稿人说well written，另一个审稿人的意见是有些内容没读懂，比如长句子要改成短句，是不是应该按照第二个人的意见来改？
第3个审稿人主要是提供了2篇文章，说要跟里面的方法比。但是里面的内容与我的文章内容似乎相关度不大。


另外犯了一个大错就是把acknowledgement里面加了一句话：“感谢编辑和匿名审稿人”。结果有个审稿人直接说：
“Why do the authors thank the reviewers before reviews have been submitted to the editorial team? I find that very strange and unusual.”
请问该怎么解释比较好呢？ 返回小木虫查看更多