When writing a thesis, I mainly follow my own way of thinking, how to write and how to write. The direction of the heart and the direction of the pen are quite like a few thousand words in a day, and it feels like God's help when writing; There are three or five reviewers, some of whom are "employed after revision" and some of whom are "reexamined after revision". When revising a paper, most of them focus on the reviewers' opinions, not "I want to feel it", but "you want to feel it".

When writing a thesis, you know what you think, so it's up to you to write it; But it's not the time to change the paper. Three or five reviewers just give you a few words, which are subtle and profound. It's really hard for you to understand all the ideas of the reviewers through this piece of speech, so that you haven't got a complete feeling after changing it for a long time.

When you write your paper, you think you are ready for everything; However, when it comes to the revision of the thesis, it is not only "only due to the east wind", but also facing the problems raised by the reviewers, such as "insufficient capacity of the boat", "insufficient strength of the rope" and "unreasonable structure of personnel". You can't help but ask, when you write your thesis, you have to send it, but when you change your thesis, why do you have to buy a new batch of arrows and bows! Where is the money and time? alas!

When writing a thesis, you feel that you are basically right; But when it comes to revising the paper, not only do the reviewers think you are wrong, but even the opinions of three or five reviewers will fight, so that you can't agree.

When writing a thesis, you feel like you have finished a very interesting research; But when it's time to revise the paper, the reviewers ask what's the significance of your research, and you are constantly asking yourself what's the significance of this research. It's a very interesting thing, but it's a head scratching thing. Finish the paper with a smile, but have to revise the paper with a sad face.

When you write a thesis, you feel like you are the leader of the industry and the pillar of the country; When it comes to correcting your thesis, you may realize that I am just a little scum

Of course, if the reviewer's comments are good, your feeling may be a different picture. From self-confidence to full confidence, from industry leaders to filling in the gaps in this field, from a glimpse of the door to proving the ultimate meaning... But don't be too proud, whether the paper is really so published, in addition to the original three or five reviewers, there will be more readers to understand your research. A little carelessness, you will find that the original research does have defects... Happiness is that you are happy at the moment, and happiness is that you can always be happy.

Call once again:

1. When the reviewers give their comments to the reviewers, they should be as specific as possible, so that the author can modify them efficiently and pertinently;

2. When the reviewers give their comments, if they have good suggestions for revision, they may as well put forward them instead of hiding them. The author has to guess what the reviewers are thinking. After guessing for a long time, he doesn't know if he is right;

3. It's normal for research to be flawed, and it can't be perfect. When reviewing manuscripts, we should be more tolerant. If we can improve some omissions, we should clearly point out or give opportunities. Of course, when the overall level is extremely poor, sometimes it is necessary to beat to death, but it must require the reviewers to have extensive knowledge and judgment not lower than the average level of the industry;

4. In the face of new research, reviewers should be more compassionate. The world is beautiful because of diversity, and the development of disciplines is exploring the road in a hundred schools of thought because of the diversity of content. When funds and projects start to be rolled in to several fixed research teams, the performance of these teams is strong, but they have hidden the risk of academic authority beyond doubt and knowledge solidification. For example, the people in these circles may all use the theory of grandparents, but they can't tolerate other views, which is not conducive to the development of the whole discipline. The development of disciplines and Sciences is due to the emergence of new elements. New things are not mature all at once. It takes time and more people to participate in them to promote their development. When I am tired of reading some platitudes, I really want to see something different and new when I read articles.

Based on the fourth point, the current fund evaluation has always been the voice of experts. The limited experts in the discipline will cause the existence of circle culture, and the circle culture will cause the circle of interests and exclusion. In such an environment, it will be more difficult for the fresh things not in the circle to survive.

ScienceNet has previously introduced the allocation of rocking numbers of scientific research projects in New Zealand and Switzerland (see the blog of Chen Dewang and Li Jiang). Can we also consider the allocation of fund projects in China in the future, so that more people from outside the circle can participate in it? A doctor can't get any financial support within five years after graduation. Apart from blaming him or her for his or her incompetence, his or her scientific research is likely to be abandoned. For countries and regions, revitalizing abandoned talents is as important as training new talents. In particular, some areas are not only unable to cultivate new people, but also fail to revitalize the elderly, which is very sad.