There were three reviewer comments for one of my papers: (1) Accept for publication (2) Minor revisions (3) Major revisions.
I felt that the third reviewer comments were most nasty, negative, and difficult for me to revise the paper etc.
However, while I'm revising this paper, it should be mentioned that it is the nasty reviewer that helps to improve my paper significantly.

The nice reviewer simply accepts the paper, and there is no improvement as a result.
Most importantly, there are still many nasty people around which we need to learn how to cope with.

Something interesting from the wikipedia:
In the last two decades, several computer-automated experiments have been conducted to search for isolated fractionally charged particles. So far (2007), no evidence for fractional charge particles was found over more than 100 million drops measured.

Starting in 1908, while a professor at the University of Chicago, Millikan, with the significant input of Fletcher,[1] and after improving his setup, published his seminal study in 1913. This remains controversial since papers found after Fletcher's death describe events in which Millikan coerced Fletcher into relinquishing authorship as a condition for receiving his PhD. In return, Millikan used his influence in support of Fletcher's career at Bell Labs.

Hi hoangnam,

Just received the verdict: revise and resubmit with major revisions.
Reviewers' comments are more than 4 pages long.

I would ask something about Maxwell's equations. :-)

My advisor was negative toward my thesis. She did not read much or provided adequate guidance. Anyway, i passed.
My advisor also told me that my paper was not well written etc... However, this paper was published.

More importantly, I don't hate my supervisor. She helped in other ways such as recommendation...

Perhaps you may volunteer to write the paper first such that you can gain some experience in writing.
The reason is it can save her some time as she can focus on mainly improving the paper.
However, you may let her know that she is still the first author, but you are the second author.
I hope she is not the sole author.

Afterall, it is not easy for a PhD student to publish a paper in the first attempt.
Anyway, I do not like this kind of supervision.
Perhaps, you may start drafting on the staining method or the effect of sample preparation...

During your PhD journey, you should not always expect the supervisor to provide excellent feedback.
Your supervisor may not be familiar or knowledgeable in this new area of research.

Eventually, we should be the expert.
It can be quite a lonely journey. You should have some friends in similar research area.
Perhaps you can look for a more specific forum...

Hi emaa,

Hope you will find the following suggestions helpful.
1. Integrate the various issues raised in the discussion sections.
2. Provide answers to the thesis research questions.
3. Identify the implications of the study.
4. Highlights the limitations of the study.
5. Suggest areas for future research.

It has changed to 'under review' again. In this journal, the editor may send a paper to at least four reviewers.
Perhaps if one of them declined to review for various reasons, it would be 'reviewer assigned' again.

Yes. My submission was a great relief as compared to viva!

One of my friends wrote a 30-pages explanations to deal with the disagreements.
Fortunately, the editor agreed and his paper was accepted for publication.

However, some editors might send the paper to a more critical reviewer...

I have a paper which was "under review". Then, it has become "reviewers assigned" for some time.
Does anyone has similar experience? One of the reviewers declined review?

This post is well written! My suggestion for you in writing your dissertation is simple: Don't be perfect in your first draft.

Well, I had a similar problem.
First, it is always possible to continue with literature review. You could be surprised to find more frameworks in 2017...
Meanwhile, you could also modify framework A based on your pilot results. Good luck!