投稿、审稿以及修改稿件时的常用句型

一、投稿时的 Cover latter
1). Here within enclosed is our paper for consideration to be publishedon "(Journal name)". The further information about the paper is in thefollowing:
The Title: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
The Authors: XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXXX
The authors claim that none of the material in the paper has beenpublished or is under consideration for publication elsewhere.
I am the corresponding author and my address and other information is as follows:
Address: Department of XXXXXXXXX,
College of Chemistry and Enviromental Science, Henan Normal University
Xinxiang City, Henan Province, 453007,
P.R.China
E-mail:
Tel: +86-XXX-XXXXXXX
Fax: +86-XXX-XXXXXXX
Thank you very much for consideration!
Sincerely Yours,
Dr. XXX

 

2). Dear Dr. A:
I am sending a manuscript entitled “ ” by – which I should like to submit for possible publication in the journal of - .
Yours sincerely

3). Dear Dr. A:
Enclosed is a manuscript entitled “” by sb, which we are submitting forpublication in the journal of - . We have chosen this journal becauseit deals with - . We believe that sth would be of interest to thejournal’s readers.

4). Dear Dr. A:
Please find enclosed for your review an original 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. Nopart of this paper has published or submitted elsewhere. No conflict ofinterest exits in the submission of this manuscript, and we haveattached to this letter the signed letter granting us permission to useFigure 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 havenot, as yet, receive acknowledgement of their safe arrival. We fearthat may have been lost and should be grateful if you would let us knowwhether or not you have received them. If not, we will send ourmanuscript 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: ) forpossible publication in your journal. I have not yet received a replyand am wondering whether you have reached a decision. I shouldappreciated your letting me know what you have decided as soon aspossible.

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 whichmerit publication. For the benefit of the reader, however, a number ofpoints need clarifying and certain statements require furtherjustification. There are given below.
3. Although these observation are interesting, they are rather limitedand do not advance our knowledge of the subject sufficiently to warrantpublication in PNAS. We suggest that the authors try submitting theirfindings 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 areputable journal of - .
6. Please ask someone familiar with English language to help yourewrite this paper. As you will see, I have made some correction at thebeginning of the paper where some syntax is not satisfactory.
7. We feel that this potentially interesting study has been marred byan inability to communicate the finding correctly in English and shouldlike to suggest that the authors seek the advice of someone with a goodknowledge of English, preferable native speaker.
8. The wording and style of some section, particularly those concerningHPLC, need careful editing. Attention should be paid to the wording ofthose parts of the Discussion of and Summary which have beenunderlined.
9. Preliminary experiments only have been done and with exception ofthat summarized in Table 2, none has been repeated. This is clearlyunsatisfactory, particularly when there is so much variation betweenassays.
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 compositionof 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). These do not affect our interpretation of theresult.
2. I have read the referee’s comments very carefully and conclude thatthe paper has been rejected on the sole grounds that it lake toxicitydata. I admit that I did not include a toxicity table in my articlealthough perhaps I should have done. This was for the sake of brevityrather than an error or omission.
3. Thank you for your letter of – and for the referee’s commentsconcerning our manuscript entitled “”. We have studied their commentscarefully and have made correction which we hope meet with theirapproval.
4. I enclosed a revised manuscript which includes a report ofadditional experiments done at the referee’s suggestion. You will seethat our original findings are confirmed.
5. We are sending the revised manuscript according to the comments of the reviewers. Revised portion 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 ourmanuscript is acceptable for publication in Cancer Research with minorrevision.
9. We have therefore completed a further series of experiments, theresult of which are summarized in Table 5. From this we conclude thatintrinsic 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 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 use of Table 4 for reasons that it shouldbe clear from the new paragraph inserted at the end of the Resultssection.
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 incorrectlystated in the original manuscript. This has been rectified. The authorsare grateful to the referees for pointing out their error.
18. As suggested by both referees, a discussion of the possibility oflaser action on chromosome has been included (page16, paragraph 2).
19. We included a new set of photographs with better definition thanthose 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 section. These are:
22. We should like to thank the referees for their helpful comments andhope that we have now produced a more balance and better account of ourwork. We trust that the revised manuscript is acceptable forpublication.
23. I greatly appreciate both your help and that of the refereesconcerning improvement to this paper. I hope that the revisedmanuscript 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 dueto our doing an additional experiment, as suggested by referees