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.
3. Dear Dr. A:
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. |
档案
日志
相册
视频
分享
分享
评论
想第一时间抢沙发么？