投稿套话

要发

SCI

的童鞋们 注意了，这是整理出来的套话系列，有用否自己看

已有

76

人参与

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

origina

l

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 refe

ree’s main criticism of paper

, it is possible to say that –