The decision email arrives, and most researchers do the two worst things in the first hour: they read only the decision line, and they start rewriting. The result is a rushed, defensive revision that answers the loudest comment and misses the one that mattered. Handling peer review well is a process with stages, and the first stage is reading. This guide explains how to handle peer review at SCI and SSCI journals from the moment the decision arrives: what each decision actually means, how to read a reviewer report, how to classify comments, and how to plan the response before touching the manuscript.
accepted SCI and SSCI papers went through at least one round of revision. A revision request, even a hard one, is the journal saying the paper is worth its reviewers' time. Treat it as an invitation, not a verdict.
决定邮件到了，大多数研究者在第一个小时里做了两件最糟糕的事：只读决定那一行，然后开始改稿。结果是一次仓促、防御性的修改，回应了最响亮的意见，却错过了真正重要的那一条。妥善应对同行评审是一个分阶段的过程，第一个阶段是阅读。本指南解释从决定到达那一刻起如何应对 SCI 和 SSCI 期刊的同行评审：每种决定的真实含义、如何阅读审稿报告、如何对意见分类，以及在动稿之前如何规划回复。
被录用的 SCI 和 SSCI 论文都经历过至少一轮修改。一封修改要求，哪怕很严厉，也是期刊在说这篇论文值得审稿人花时间。把它当作邀请，而不是判决。
What each decision actually means
| Decision | What the editor is saying | Realistic outlook |
|---|---|---|
| Accept | Rare on first submission; usually follows a revision | Proceed to production |
| Minor revision | The paper is essentially accepted if you fix specific items | Very high acceptance if every item is addressed |
| Major revision | The paper is publishable in principle but needs substantial work; may return to reviewers | Good odds if the response is complete and disciplined |
| Reject and resubmit | Not publishable as is, but the editor sees a possible paper and invites a new submission | Moderate; depends on whether the core problem can be solved |
| Reject after review | Reviewers found problems the editor does not think a revision can fix here | Low at this journal; the reports are valuable for the next one |
Two mistakes are common. Researchers treat major revision as a rejection and abandon the paper, and they treat reject-and-resubmit as a revision and send the same paper back unchanged. Our posts on major versus minor revision and what to do with reject and resubmit explain each, and the sibling post on major revisions and changing journals covers the decision to stay or move.
每种决定的真实含义
| 决定 | 编辑在说什么 | 现实前景 |
|---|---|---|
| 录用 | 首次投稿极少见；通常在修改之后 | 进入出版流程 |
| 小修 | 只要修正具体项目，论文基本已被接受 | 逐项处理后录用率非常高 |
| 大修 | 论文原则上可发表，但需要大量工作；可能再送审稿人 | 回复完整、有条理则胜算良好 |
| 拒稿重投 | 现状不可发表，但编辑看到了一篇可能的论文，邀请重新投稿 | 中等；取决于核心问题能否解决 |
| 评审后拒稿 | 审稿人发现的问题，编辑认为在本刊无法通过修改解决 | 本刊胜算低；审稿报告对下一本期刊很有价值 |
两个错误很常见。研究者把大修当成拒稿而放弃论文；把拒稿重投当成修改而原封不动地投回去。《大修与小修》和《拒稿重投怎么办》分别解释，《大修与换期刊》讲解留下还是转投的决定。
Read before you react: the 48-hour rule
Read the full decision letter and every reviewer report once, without a pen. Then close them for 24 to 48 hours. Emotional reactions, defensiveness in particular, produce worse responses than neutral ones, and reviewers can tell. When you return, read again with a pen, and this time read the editor's letter more carefully than the reviews. Editors often signal which comments they consider essential ("in particular, please address Reviewer 2's concern about the sample") and which they do not.
先读再反应：48 小时规则
完整读一遍决定信和每份审稿报告，不拿笔。然后合上，放 24 到 48 小时。情绪化反应，尤其是防御心态，产生的回复比平静时更差，而审稿人看得出来。回来后拿笔再读一遍，这一次要比读审稿意见更仔细地读编辑的信。编辑常常暗示哪些意见是必须处理的（"尤其请回应审稿人 2 对样本的顾虑"），哪些不是。
Classify every comment
Break each report into individual comments, number them (R1.1, R1.2, R2.1...), and put them in a table with four columns: the comment, its type, your decision, and the action. The types matter because each needs a different kind of response.
- Essential fixes.Errors, missing analyses, unsupported claims. Do them all, without argument.
- Requests for clarification.The reviewer did not understand something. Usually the text was unclear; fix the text, and say where.
- Requests for additions.New analysis, new literature, new data. Do what is feasible; for the rest, explain why not, with a limitation added if appropriate.
- Disagreements.The reviewer holds a different view. Answer with evidence and courtesy; concede where they have a point. See how to disagree with a reviewer professionally.
- Contradictions between reviewers.Reviewer 1 wants it shorter; Reviewer 2 wants more detail. Choose with reasons and tell the editor. See handling contradictory reviewer feedback.
- Out of scope.Requests that would make a different paper. Decline politely and briefly, and suggest it as future work.
对每条意见分类
把每份报告拆成单条意见，编号（R1.1、R1.2、R2.1……），放进一张四列表格：意见、类型、您的决定、行动。类型很重要，因为每一类需要不同的回复方式。
- 必须修正。错误、缺失的分析、无支持的结论。全部照做，不争辩。
- 要求澄清。审稿人没有理解某处。通常是文字不清；修改文字，并说明在哪里。
- 要求补充。新分析、新文献、新数据。可行的就做；其余的解释原因，适当时加入局限性。
- 意见分歧。审稿人持不同看法。用证据和礼貌回应；对方有道理之处要承认。参见《如何专业地与审稿人不同意》。
- 审稿人之间的矛盾。审稿人 1 要更短；审稿人 2 要更多细节。有理由地选择，并告知编辑。参见《处理相互矛盾的审稿意见》。
- 超出范围。会变成另一篇论文的要求。礼貌而简短地拒绝，建议作为未来工作。
Plan before you rewrite
Writing the response alongside the revision, rather than afterwards, is the single habit that most improves outcomes. It stops the common failure of a response letter that says "we have addressed this" beside a manuscript that has not changed. Our sibling post on the point-by-point response letter gives the format and examples, and the 10-day revise and resubmit plan compresses this schedule for tight deadlines.
Do not contact reviewers, do not argue with the editor by email before submitting the revision, and do not submit the paper elsewhere while a revision is invited. All three end submissions, and the last one is an ethics breach that journals share with each other.
先规划再改稿
把回复与修改同步撰写，而不是事后补写，是最能改善结果的一个习惯。它避免了常见的失败：回复信说"我们已经处理"，而稿件却没有变化。姊妹文章《逐条回复信》给出格式和示例，《十天修改重投计划》为紧迫期限压缩了这份日程。
不要联系审稿人，不要在提交修改稿之前通过邮件与编辑争辩，也不要在受邀修改期间把论文投到别处。这三件事都会终结投稿，最后一件更是期刊之间会相互通报的伦理违规。
SCI and SSCI differences in review
SCI reviews tend to
- Be shorter and more itemised
- Focus on methods, statistics, controls and reproducibility
- Request additional experiments or analyses
- Move faster, with two rounds common
SSCI reviews tend to
- Be longer and more discursive
- Focus on theory, framing, contribution and literature
- Request reframing and deeper discussion
- Take longer, sometimes three rounds
For SSCI papers the most frequent hard comment is "insufficient theoretical contribution", which is a framing problem rather than a data problem; see how to handle 'insufficient theoretical contribution' feedback. For SCI papers it is a request for an additional experiment or a larger sample; decide early whether that is feasible, because the answer determines whether you revise or move.
A management researcher who came to us after three rejections handled a major revision with an 11-day deadline through exactly this process and was accepted in an SSCI journal published by De Gruyter. Read the case study → Our Review and Response Support service works alongside you from decision letter to resubmission, and the complete peer review process guide explains what happens on the journal's side.
SCI 与 SSCI 评审的差异
SCI 评审往往
- 更短，更条目化
- 聚焦方法、统计、对照和可重复性
- 要求补充实验或分析
- 推进更快，常见两轮
SSCI 评审往往
- 更长，更论述性
- 聚焦理论、框架、贡献和文献
- 要求重新框定和更深入的讨论
- 耗时更长，有时三轮
对 SSCI 论文，最常见的严厉意见是"理论贡献不足"，这是框架问题而非数据问题；参见《如何应对“理论贡献不足”意见》。对 SCI 论文，则是要求补充实验或扩大样本；尽早判断是否可行，因为答案决定了是修改还是转投。
一位管理学研究者在三次被拒后找到我们，正是通过这一过程在 11 天期限内完成大修，被 De Gruyter 出版的一本 SSCI 期刊录用。阅读案例 → 审稿回复支持服务从决定信到重新提交全程与您并肩，《同行评审全流程指南》解释了期刊那一端发生的事。
Working with co-authors and supervisors
Revisions fail when responsibility is unclear. Send the comment table to every co-author with a proposed owner for each row and a date. Ask the corresponding author to hold the master response document, and route all edits through it. If a supervisor is unresponsive, set an internal deadline a week before the journal's and proceed on that; a revision submitted without a supervisor's last read is better than a revision not submitted. Our post on publishing without a supervisor's help covers the harder cases.
与合著者和导师协作
责任不清时修改会失败。把意见表发给每位合著者，为每一行提议负责人和日期。请通讯作者掌管回复主文档，所有编辑都通过它汇总。如果导师不回应，设定比期刊期限早一周的内部期限并据此推进；没有导师最后过目就提交的修改稿，好过没有提交的修改稿。《在没有导师帮助的情况下发表》涵盖更棘手的情况。
Add us on WeChat
Scan the QR code to reach the Research Ramp team directly on WeChat.
Scan to add as friend添加我们的微信
扫描二维码，直接联系 Research Ramp 团队。
扫码添加好友Facing a revision deadline?
Upload the revised draft to the free Manuscript Health Checker to catch gaps before resubmission, or talk to a PhD editor about the reviewer reports.
Upload your draft freeRevision support: book a free consultation or add us on WeChat面临修改期限？
将修改稿上传到免费的稿件健康检查工具，在重新提交前发现漏洞，或与博士编辑讨论审稿报告。
免费上传初稿修改支持：预约免费咨询或添加微信