Google Jay Chou's best songs :-)

The time spent on 'minor corrections' may be comparatively more than 'major corrections'.

For example, a professor may give comments that are over 10 pages long, and request 'minor corrections'.
On the other hand, another professor may give comments that are 2 pages long, and request 'major corrections'.

Just follow his suggestions. But you should keep the email which your supervisor recommended the additional corrections.

On the contrary, my supervisor advised me NOT to include additional changes even it can improve the thesis significantly. However, my introduction went through many revisions before the submission...

Do you think editors would assign nasty reviewers for their papers in their journals?
I would assign insightful, helpful, and open-mined reviewers for my paper.

Editors usually know their reviewers very well.
If they do not want your paper, they may send it to certain 'group' of reviewers…
Be careful when you write to them. :-)

Perhaps you did not include statistical analysis? Or the paper is still not clear?

Hi Pia,

For my case, my sup did not submit a new file. However, my sup has good relationship with the editor. :)

In one journal, an editor explicitly discourages revising the file after submission. (It is mentioned in the submission process...) Frankly, I can imagine the confusion caused for the admin etc... who does not know much about the manuscript. However, what is most important is the overall quality of your manuscript. Who does not make little mistake like this?

Just tell the editor that you prefer the latest file.
One editor mentioned that the replacement of manuscript could lengthen the review process. Good luck!

Hi Pia,

My sup submitted the wrong version in the initial submission.
However, my sup blamed me for having so 'many' versions. :)

It should be good to clarify with the editor as HazyJane has suggested.
However, it is possible that this will give a negative impression.
So, is it really that critical? Some editors may focus on the introduction, conclusion and references…

My sup accidentally submitted an earlier version of my manuscript, and luckily it was still accepted for publication.

Or try something like "Concepts as Tools in the Experimental Generation of Knowledge in Cognitive Neuropsychology" :). You can download it for free...

Perhaps you should read a paper titled "Developing a Framework for Analyzing Definitions"...