英文投稿信件、报道写法

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