SCI 投稿信件的一些套话
发布时间: 2012-09-21   浏览次数: 167



Dear Dr. A:

Please find enclosed for your review an original research article, “” by s.

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.



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.



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.



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


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?



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


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.

Copyright@ 2012 南京理工大学青年学者协会
 地 址:江苏省.南京市.南京理工大学 电话:025-84303167 电子邮箱 微博