Try to respond as many as possible and provide an explanation why impossible to respond to other issues mentioned by the reviewer. In case of unsuccess, you will have a better manuscript that you can resubmit to another journal. Good luck

Using a PRISMA approach to a literature review sounds excessive to me. Can you say more about the research problem that you are addressing the methods you are using.

Sometimes even the reviewers' comments are contradictory. Try your best, and hope for the best. My experience is that, if both reviewers require major revisions, it might be better to send the ( improved) article to another journal.

Thank you for your answers.

The e-mail of response of the journal indicates the following line explicity: "Based on the advice received, the Editor feels that your manuscript could be reconsidered for publication should you be prepared to incorporate major revisions. When preparing your revised manuscript, you are asked to carefully consider the reviewer comments which are attached, and submit a list of responses to the comments".

I have no idea if I have a chance in this case. But as you mentioned, I will make the corrections provided by the reviewers.

Thank you.

Kind regards,

Jonathan

Someone suggested that doing the requested revisions would help you if you send your paper to another journal, but I think only makes sense if you are resubmitting to the same journal. After all, who knows what a different set of reviewers might request.

Dear Jonathan Álvarez Ariza in most of the quality journals, major corrections for the first revision has become a "norm" and the editor response is almost always a standard text as you received. However, every manuscript has the chance for publication in the journal it was submitted until it is rejected. Try to prepare a separate author response sheet with all reviewer comments and your response; sometimes even presentation of the response helps :). As mentioned above, try to revise what is possible and try to explain politely what is not possible. Best of luck. Tq.

My approach is to start with the easy things and it is like going up a ladder, keep going up and up from that point.

Another thing that I find very helpful (when thinking about "major revisions") is to think while I go for long runs. That works well for me because I like long runs anyway, so you might substitute some other activity you prefer that is very repetitive and/or physical.

When journal asks for revision of paper stating recommendations of reviewers, you should be ready for carrying out as many recommendations as possible that the paper requires to become competitive for publication in the concerned journal.

Regarding methodology better give citations of previous works where the same research method/model was followed in case you applied it as it is. Or else, mention the modifications you have made to the exisring model. If you are asked for developing methodology, it implies that your whole study (especially results or findings) needs to be developed using some other appropriate tools.

Regarding SLR, your reviews should be consistent enough systematically that deal with the way the variables you considered for your study. For eg: reviews relating to particular variable/concept should be in one area in a systematic manner under particular head, and so on and so forth.

You must see that there is connection between research questions-objectives-hypotheses-findings-conclusion.

Even after carrying out maximum of recommendations, if you feel some are not possible/relevant to your study then give jusrification for the same from the point of view of your study.

It is to the best of my knowledge in common, it may depend on the depth of your study and reviewers expertise.

You should try to incorporate as many as changes you can do for major revision suggested by reviewer's. But in processing those changes, you should not alter the main theme of your study. Systematic literature review is the newest and most acceptable method of writing literature review nowadays. So you must do a systematic literature review to make ur study more auntheic and relevant as per today's requirement. Try to give citation of previous or existing studies to validate your study. As I have said earlier try to incorporate maximum changes suggested by reviewer's otherwise give necessary justification of not doing the same.

I disagree that a systematic literature review is appropriate for new empirical article. If you are testing hypotheses then a narrative literature review should be sufficient to justify those hypotheses.

I would like to reply to the editorial board and reviewers that the main focus of this empirical paper is the method, rather than the LR. Also, you can cite the PRISMA flow within your response document to explain that the PRISMA is suitable for a systematic review or bibliometrics analysis. However, we do not need it for the LR of this empirical work. Thanks to the reviewer's suggestion, but we will not take it, as it is not relevant.

Dear

Keep it simple and consider that the reviewer give you a chance to have one more time to carefully review your paper and improve it to the next level. For sure you will improve your paper having the chance to read it once again and you will address their comments too. Feel free and go through.

I think you should make the suggested corrections BEFORE considering submitting to another journal.

Really, thank you for your help. At this moment, I'm making the corrections.

Dear Jonathan Álvarez Ariza , You have very good responses from others, however, you can read the following article for a better understanding of the response given to reviewers.

Article How to deal with revisions?

Thank you Rahul for the paper, there are some interesting guidelines.

Try to address those comments as much as possible. For the ones that you think are impossible, you may provide rebuttal to the editor explaining your opinion.