一、投稿信 1. Dear Dr. Defendi ML: I am nding a manuscript entitled “” by – which I should like to submit for possible publication in the journal of - . Yours sincerely 2. Dear Dr. A: Enclod is a manuscript entitled “” by sb, which we are submitting for publication in the journal of - . We have chon this journal becau it deals with - . We believe that sth would be of interest to the journal’s readers. 3. Dear Dr. A: Plea find enclod for your review an original rearch 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 elwhere. 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 u 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 nd 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 the obrvation 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 – becau the main obrvation it describe was reported 3 years ago in a reputable journal of - . 6. Plea ask someone familiar with English language to help you rewrite this paper. As you will e, 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 ek the advice of someone with a good knowledge of English, preferable native speaker. 8. The wording and style of some ction, particularly tho concerning HPLC, need careful editing. Attention should be paid to the wording of tho 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 ud? 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 raid 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). The 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 enclod a revid manuscript which includes a report of additional experiments done at the referee’s suggestion. You will e that our original findings are confirmed. 5. We are nding the revid manuscript according to the comments of the reviewers. Revid portion are underlined in red. 6. We found the referee’s comments most helpful and have revid the manuscript 7. We are plead to note the favorable comments of reviewers in their opening ntence. 8. Thank you for your letter. I am very plead to learn that our manuscript is acceptable for publication in Cancer Rearch with minor revision. 9. We have therefore completed a further ries 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 esntial 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 u of Table 4 for reasons that it should be clear from the new paragraph inrted at the end of the Results ction. 14. Although reviewer does not consider it is important to measure the temperature of the cells, we consider it esntial. 15. The running title has been changed to “”. 16. The Materials and Methods ction now includes details for measuring uptake of isotope and assaying hexokina. 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 lar action on chromosome has been included (page16, paragraph 2). 19. We included a new t of photographs with better definition than tho 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 ction. The 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 revid 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 revid 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. |
本文发布于:2023-06-12 10:37:06，感谢您对本站的认可！
本文链接：https://www.wtabcd.cn/fanwen/fan/82/936559.html
版权声明：本站内容均来自互联网，仅供演示用，请勿用于商业和其他非法用途。如果侵犯了您的权益请与我们联系，我们将在24小时内删除。
| 留言与评论（共有 0 条评论） |
