Senterias paper provided some practical suggestions to avoid the baleful attacks

and criticisms from reviewers. He used an interesting analog of keep the reviewers
axe in its sheath and shared 7 guidelines to achieve this. I conclude these guidelines
into 3 main parts.
1. Hold a simple motivation of publishing a paper
Senteria stated a simple fact that a scientific manuscript is intended to
communicate new information and to teach new material to a willing audience,
which corresponding with Whitesides opinion. A simple motivation keeps the authors
from showing off and tricking, which would definitely reduce the probability to annoy
the reviewer.
2. Find appropriate references
Since most of research work is based on others, it is important to cite right
references to clarify the background of the work. Before searching for references,
make it clear that what work had been done.

If there is some covert references closely related to the manuscript, the authors
should inform the reviewers and editor, or the reviewers would think the
authors trick them and get angry.

The results of a paper should also be compared to those of prior work with
right references cited.

3. Rely on the rule of believability index

There are 3 grades of believability index (BI), in which a cited public record of
previously published work, basic laws of physics, well-established theories and
models, and widely practiced experimental procedures are with HIGH BI, the new
results are with MODERATE BI, and the speculation of new results is with LOW BI.
The rule is to place the materials with high BI in front of those with lower BI. And
this rule can help avoid the reviewers axe in following ways.

Try to mine all of the information from data, though it brings new results with
low BI. If these results were organized properly as the rule of BI, the reviewers
would accept them.

Sample-preparation methods should belong to the high part. If they are quite

new, calibration or other ways of confirmation can bring them with higher BI.

When reporting a new model, begin with the parts of high BI, such as the
original model or the foundation of it. Then make the parts with low BI clearly.

Dont use the gambling words to indicate the parts with low BI, but make
them clear to the reviewers in right places.

Don't show a confirming experiment or other demonstrations, which are with

high BI, after the speculations with low BI.

Senteria closed the paper with the suggestions about dealing with the comments
from the reviewers, in which he emphasized that reviewers are inarticulate.

Complains from the reviewers are good chances for a paper to improve.

Respond to each and every reviewer criticism with manner and respect.

Think about every comments carefully for a way both improving the paper and
satisfying the reviewer.

Keep an open mind when dealing with comments in a particular point, and
expand them to the other related part of the paper.

Submit a complete restatement of the reviewer comments with own comments

on them.

Cong Zhao
5 July 2013