SCI论文回信模板

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 co

nclude 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 include

s 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