-
投稿信
1.
Dear
Dr
.
Defendi
ML:
I
am
sending
a
manuscript
entitled
“”
by
–
which
I
should
like
to
submit
for
possible
publication
i
n
the
journal
of
- .
Yours
sincerely
2.
Dear
Dr
.
A:
Enclosed
is
a
manuscript
entitled
“”
by
sb,
which
we
are
submitting
for
publi
cation
in
the
journal
of
- .
We
have
chosen
this
journal
because
it
deals
with
- .
We
believe
that
sth
would
be
of
inte
rest
to
the
journal’s
readers.
3.
Dear
Dr
.
A:
Please
find
enclosed
for
your
review
an
original
research
article,
“”
by
sb.
All
authors
ha
ve
read
a
nd
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
f
rom
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
ac
knowledgement
of
their
safe
arrival.
We
fear
that
may
have
been
lost
and
should
be
grateful
if
y
ou
would
let
us
know
whether
or
not
you
have
received
them.
If
not,
we
will
send
our
manuscri
pt
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
revisio
n
are
list
below.
2.
This
is
a
well-written
paper
containing
interesting
results
which
merit
publication.
For
the
benefi
t
of
the
reader
,
however
,
a
number
of
points
need
clarifying
and
certain
statements
require
furthe
r
justification.
There
are
given
below.
3.
Although
these
observation
are
interesting,
they
are
rather
limited
and
do
not
advance
our
kno
wledge
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
s
ee,
I
have
made
some
correction
at
the
beginning
of
the
paper
where
some
syntax
is
not
satisfa
ctory.
7.
We
feel
that
this
potentially
interesting
study
has
been
marred
by
an
inability
to
communicate
t
he
finding
correctly
in
English
and
should
like
to
suggest
that
the
authors
seek
the
advice
of
som
eone
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
variat
ion
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
i
n
Figure
1.
This
has
now
been
corrected.
Further
minor
changes
had
been
made
on
page
3,
para
graph
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
reject
ed
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
entitl
ed
“”.
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
p
ortion
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
pub
lication
in
Cancer
Research
with
minor
revision.
9.
We
have
therefore
completed
a
further
series
of
experiments,
the
result
of
which
are
summariz
ed
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
misinterpretatio
n
of
the
data.
12.
We
would
have
include
a
non-protein
inhibitor
in
our
system,
as
a
control,
if
one
had
been
a
vailable.
13.
We
prefer
to
retain
the
use
of
Table
4
for
reasons
that
it
should
be
clear
from
the
new
para
graph
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
m
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
上一篇：2017外研社听力训练文字稿
下一篇：雅思口语考试 Part 1 话题与词汇总结