I answer all the questions that I can, and I make amendments based on good advice and thank them.  When there is a comment or requirement that I think is not good for my paper, I explain politely why I should stick to my own ideas.  I always remember that some of them are really trying to understand what we write.  This is not easy when they do not have the first hand knowledge that we obtain from the study.  (I also scan my paper before hand, to prevent self-plagiarism because I wrote several papers on music mnemonics as a memory tool for learning several biological processes.)

Dear Rami,

Responding to reviewers comments is often an excellent opportunity to improve your academic writing and writing for publication skills. I agree with Miranda that you should have enough self-confidence and courage to challenge reviewer's comments when you genuinely feel they are incorrect.

Sometimes reviews are unpleasant or they are an unexpected shock. In such circumstances it is important to create a bit of emotional space before responding in order to try to appreciate any constructive elements in them objectively. Once objectivity is established you can weight your options more accurately and decide whether to go ahead with a rewrite in this particular journal based on your reviewers' comments or to try your chances elsewhere.

Finally, I find that the whole writing for publication process, including handling the review process, is much more effective if you co-author with one other person (but decide who is the lead author).

Thank you very much Miranda and Peter for your responses.

I have read interesting advise from the website of elsevier by Lucy van Hilten.

http://www.elsevier.com/authors-update/story/publishing-tips/3-top-tips-for-responding-to-reviewer-comments-on-your-manuscript

I paste the imprtant expressions:

'  3 top tips for responding to reviewer comments on your manuscript

1- You can disagree, as long as you explain

As an author, it can be difficult to read reviewers' suggestions – after all, you have probably poured blood, sweat and tears into the manuscript. You might even have a knee-jerk reaction to defend your article.

According to Professor Pázsit, disagreement is fine – in fact, it is actually part of the process – but it's important you can back it up. "The author may not agree with a comment – this is the essence of the scientific debate, a natural part of the business."

Explaining why you disagree will help the reviewer and editor understand your point of view and ultimately help them make an informed decision about your paper. As Elsevier Executive Publisher Dr. Jaap van Harten advises, "don't fall into the trap of writing to the editor to say that the reviewer is crazy, or incompetent. Make it a factual response. You should have a complete, solid and polite rebuttal to the editor. Write in such a manner that your response can be forwarded to the reviewer – editors love copy pasting."

2- Spell it out

"The main mistake I see in authors' responses to reviewers' comments is in what I call the 'ergonomy' of the information – how well it's described to the editors and reviewers," says Professor Pázsit. "The editors and reviewers don't have time to check the new draft line by line and find the author's changes."

According to Dr. van Harten, the simplest way to ensure your responses are informative is to "copy paste each reviewer comment, and type your response below it. If you do so, you should be very specific. So if the reviewer says 'the discussion section is not clear', it's not enough to say 'we changed the discussion section'. What you should say is 'we changed the discussion section on page 24, lines 7-23'. That makes it clear to the editor what you have changed, and when it goes back to the reviewer, the reviewer sees it immediately and you create a win-win situation".

3- Don't forget to make the changes

One of the biggest mistakes made by authors is to respond to all the comments, but forget to actually update the paper.

Don't be that person: one way to make sure you remember is to always include line numbers in your changes. That way, you actually have to make the change first before including the line numbers in your response.  "

I add some useful links in the subject:

http://www.clinchem.org/content/57/4/551.full

https://www.aje.com/zh/author-resources/articles/responding-reviewers-you-cant-always-say-what-youd

https://www.epsrc.ac.uk/funding/assessmentprocess/responding/

If you are interested by the subject, I share a received  email from Elsevier Publishing Group :

" Watch our LIVE online lecture tomorrow and learn how to deal with reviewers' comments,

How to respond to reviewers' comments

Tuesday 6th Oct, 2015 at 3pm CEST (UTC+2) Check your time zone

Duration: 40 min I Presented by Paul Cumine.

This is the link of the registration:

https://www.publishingcampus.elsevier.com/pages/227/How-to-handle-revisions.html