• Respond to every substantive reviewer comment.
• Clearly identify the changes made in the revised manuscript.
• Explain the academic reason when a reviewer suggestion is not adopted.
• Ensure that revisions do not introduce inconsistencies elsewhere in the manuscript.
• Recheck calculations, statistical analysis, tables, figures, equations, and references affected by the revision.
• Ensure that newly added claims are adequately supported by appropriate references or evidence.
• Submit the revised manuscript and response document within the period specified by the Editorial Office.

Authors should prepare a point-by-point response to reviewer comments when requested. Each response should identify the comment, explain the action taken, and indicate where the corresponding change appears in the revised manuscript. Responses should remain professional and should address disagreements through clear academic reasoning.

If significant concerns remain unresolved, the Editor may request another revision cycle. A revised manuscript may also be returned to reviewers for further evaluation. The number of revision rounds may depend on the nature of the manuscript and the extent of unresolved issues.

Authors should submit revisions within the deadline communicated by the Editorial Office. If additional time is required, authors should contact the Editorial Office before the deadline and provide a reasonable explanation. Failure to respond within the specified period may affect the continuation of the manuscript's editorial processing.

Revision does not guarantee acceptance. After the revised manuscript has been assessed, the Editor may accept the manuscript, request further revision, or decline the manuscript when the required improvements have not been adequately addressed or when substantive concerns remain.