SCI投稿信件的一些套话拿来主义
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 - .
侯德昌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
九七年的今年多大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
空调变频和定频的区别
荷兰首相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.
容仪
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.
繁星春水摘抄
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 –
下三白眼
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.一个可疑的员工
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.
