SCI投稿信件的一些套话
（网上转载）
一、投稿信
1. Dear Dr. Defendi ML:
I am sending a manuscript entitled “” by – which I should like to submit for
possible publication in the journal of - .
Yours sincerely
2. Dear Dr. A:
Enclosed is a manuscript entitled “” by sb, which we
are submitting for publication in the journal of - . We have chosen this
journal because it deals with - . We believe that sth
would be of interest to the journal’s readers.
Please find enclosed for your review an original research article, “” by sb. All authors have read and approve this version of the
article, and due care has been taken to ensure the integrity of the work. No
part of this paper has published or submitted elsewhere. No conflict of
interest exits in the submission of this manuscript, and we have attached to
this letter the signed letter granting us permission to use Figure 1 from
another source.
We appreciate your consideration of our manuscript, and we look forward to receiving
comments from the reviewers.
二、询问有无收到稿件
Dear Editors,
We dispatched our manuscript to your journal on 3 August 2006 but have not, as
yet, receive acknowledgement of their safe arrival. We fear that may have been
lost and should be grateful if you would let us know whether or not you have
received them. If not, we will send our manuscript again. Thank you in advance
for your help.
三、询问论文审查回音
Dear Editors，
It is more than 12 weeks since I submitted our manuscript (No: ) for possible
publication in your journal. I have not yet received a reply and am wondering
whether you have reached a decision. I should appreciated
your letting me know what you have decided as soon as possible.
四、关于论文的总体审查意见
1. This is a carefully done study and the findings are of considerable
interest. A few minor revision are list below.
2. This is a well-written paper containing interesting results which merit
publication. For the benefit of the reader, however, a number of points need
clarifying and certain statements require further justification. There are
given below.
3. Although these observation are interesting, they are rather limited and do
not advance our knowledge of the subject sufficiently to warrant publication in
PNAS. We suggest that the authors try submitting their findings to specialist
journal such as –
4. Although this paper is good, it would be ever better if some extra data were
added.
5. This manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal of – because
the main observation it describe was reported 3 years ago in a reputable
journal of - .
6. Please ask someone familiar with English language to help you rewrite this
paper. As you will see, I have made some correction at the beginning of the
paper where some syntax is not satisfactory.
7. We feel that this potentially interesting study has been marred by an
inability to communicate the finding correctly in English and should like to
suggest that the authors seek the advice of someone with a good knowledge of
English, preferable native speaker.
8. The wording and style of some section, particularly those concerning HPLC,
need careful editing. Attention should be paid to the wording of those parts of
the Discussion of and Summary which have been
underlined.
9. Preliminary experiments only have been done and with exception of that
summarized in Table 2, none has been repeated. This is clearly unsatisfactory,
particularly when there is so much variation between assays.
10. The condition of incubation are poorly defined.
What is the temperature? Were antibody used?
五、给编辑的回信
1. In reply to the referee’s main criticism of paper, it is possible to say
that –
One minor point raised by the referee concerns of the extra composition of the
reaction mixture in Figure 1. This has now been corrected. Further minor changes
had been made on page 3, paragraph 1 (line 3-8) and 2 (line 6-11). These do not
affect our interpretation of the result.
2. I have read the referee’s comments very carefully and conclude that the
paper has been rejected on the sole grounds that it lake toxicity data. I admit
that I did not include a toxicity table in my article although perhaps I should
have done. This was for the sake of brevity rather than an error or omission.
3. Thank you for your letter of – and for the referee’s comments concerning our
manuscript entitled “”. We have studied their comments carefully and have made
correction which we hope meet with their approval.
4. I enclosed a revised manuscript which includes a report of additional
experiments done at the referee’s suggestion. You will see that our original
findings are confirmed.
5. We are sending the revised manuscript according to the comments of the
reviewers. Revised portion are underlined in red.
6. We found the referee’s comments most helpful and have revised the manuscript
7. We are pleased to note the favorable comments of reviewers in their opening
sentence.
8. Thank you for your letter. I am very pleased to learn that our manuscript is
acceptable for publication in Cancer Research with minor revision.
9. We have therefore completed a further series of experiments, the result of
which are summarized in Table 5. From this we conclude that intrinsic factor is
not account.
10. We deleted the relevant passage since they are not essential to the
contents of the paper.
11. I feel that the reviewer’s comments concerning Figures 1 and 2 result from a misinterpretation of the data.
12. We would have include a non-protein inhibitor in
our system, as a control, if one had been available.
13. We prefer to retain the use of Table 4 for reasons that it should be clear
from the new paragraph inserted at the end of the Results section.
14. Although reviewer does not consider it is important to measure the
temperature of the cells, we consider it essential.
15. The running title has been changed to “”.
16. The Materials and Methods section now includes details for measuring uptake
of isotope and assaying hexokinase.
17. The concentration of HAT media (page12 paragraph 2) was incorrectly stated
in the original manuscript. This has been rectified. The authors are grateful
to the referees for pointing out their error.
18. As suggested by both referees, a discussion of the possibility of laser
action on chromosome has been included (page16, paragraph 2).
19. We included a new set of photographs with better definition than those
originally submitted and to which a scale has been added.
20. Following the suggestion of the referees, we have redraw Figure 3 and 4.
21. Two further papers, published since our original submission, have been
added to the text and Reference section. These are:
22. We should like to thank the referees for their helpful comments and hope
that we have now produced a more balance and better account of our work. We
trust that the revised manuscript is acceptable for publication.
23. I greatly appreciate both your help and that of the referees concerning
improvement to this paper. I hope that the revised manuscript is now suitable
for publication.
24. I should like to express my appreciation to you and the referees for
suggesting how to improve our paper.
25. I apologize for the delay in revising the manuscript. This was due to our
doing an additional experiment, as suggested by referees.