SCI最初投稿cover letter

SCI 最初投稿Cover letter
Dear Editors:
We would like to submit the enclosed manuscript entitled “Paper Title”, which we wish to be considered for publication in “Journal Name”. No conflict of interest exits in the submission of this manuscript, and manuscript is approved by all authors for publication. I would like to declare on behalf of my co-authors that the work described was original research that has not been published previously, and not under consideration for publication elsewhere, in whole or in part. All the authors listed have approved the manuscript that is enclosed.
In this work, we evaluated …… (简要介绍一下论文的创新性). I hope this paper is suitable for “Journal Name”.
The following is a list of possible reviewers for your consideration:
1) Name A E-mail: ××××@××××
2) Name B E-mail: ××××@××××
We deeply appreciate your consideration of our manuscript, and we look forward to receiving comments from the reviewers. If you have any queries, please don’t hesitate to contact me at the address below.
Thank you and best regards.
Yours sincerely,
××××××
Corresponding author:
Name: ×××
E-mail: ××××@××××

一、投稿信
1. Dear Dr. Defendi ML:
I am sending a manuscript entitled “” by – which I should like to submit forpossible publication in the journal of - .
Yours sincerely
2. Dear Dr. A:
Enclosed is a manuscript entitled “” by sb, which we are submitting forpublication in the journal of - . We have chosen this journal because it dealswith - . We believe that sth would be of interest to the journal’s readers.
3. 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 hasbeen taken to ensure the integrity of the work. No part of this paper haspublished or submitted elsewhere. No conflict of interest exits in thesubmission of this manuscript, and we have attached to this letter the signedletter granting us permission to use Figure 1 from another source.
We appreciate your consideration of our manuscript, and we look forward toreceiving 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, asyet, receive acknowledgement of their safe arrival. We fear that may have beenlost and should be grateful if you would let us know whether or not you havereceived them. If not, we will send our manuscript again. Thank you in advancefor 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 possiblepublication in your journal. I have not yet received a reply and am wonderingwhether you have reached a decision. I should appreciated your letting me knowwhat 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 considerableinterest. A few minor revision are list below.
2. This is a well-written paper containing interesting results which meritpublication. For the benefit of the reader, however, a number of points needclarifying and certain statements require further justification. There aregiven below.
3. Although these observation are interesting, they are rather limited and donot advance our knowledge of the subject sufficiently to warrant publication inPNAS. We suggest that the authors try submitting their findings to specialistjournal such as –
4. Although this paper is good, it would be ever better if some extra data wereadded.
5. This manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal of – becausethe main observation it describe was reported 3 years ago in a reputablejournal of - .
6. Please ask someone familiar with English language to help you rewrite thispaper. As you will see, I have made some correction at the beginning of thepaper where some syntax is not satisfactory.
7. We feel that this potentially interesting study has been marred by aninability to communicate the finding correctly in English and should like tosuggest that the authors seek the advice of someone with a good knowledge ofEnglish, 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 ofthe Discussion of and Summary which have been underlined.
9. Preliminary experiments only have been done and with exception of thatsummarized 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 referee’s main criticism of paper, it is possible to saythat –
One minor point raised by the referee concerns of the extra composition of thereaction mixture in Figure 1. This has now been corrected. Further minorchanges had been made on page 3, paragraph 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 thepaper has been rejected on the sole grounds that it lake toxicity data. I admitthat I did not include a toxicity table in my article although perhaps I shouldhave 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 ourmanuscript entitled “”. We have studied their comments carefully and have madecorrection which we hope meet with their approval.
4. I enclosed a revised manuscript which includes a report of additionalexperiments done at the referee’s suggestion. You will see that our originalfindings are confirmed.
5. We are sending the revised manuscript according to the comments of thereviewers. 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 openingsentence.
8. Thank you for your letter. I am very pleased to learn that our manuscript isacceptable for publication in Cancer Research with minor revision.
9. We have therefore completed a further series of experiments, the result ofwhich are summarized in Table 5. From this we conclude that intrinsic factor isnot account.
10. We deleted the relevant passage since they are not essential to thecontents of the paper.
11. I feel that the reviewer’s comments concerning Figures 1 and 2 result froma 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 should be clearfrom the new paragraph inserted at the end of the Results section.
14. Although reviewer does not consider it is important to measure thetemperature 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 uptakeof isotope and assaying hexokinase.
17. The concentration of HAT media (page12 paragraph 2) was incorrectly statedin the original manuscript. This has been rectified. The authors are gratefulto the referees for pointing out their error.
18. As suggested by both referees, a discussion of the possibility of laseraction on chromosome has been included (page16, paragraph 2).
19. We included a new set of photographs with better definition than thoseoriginally 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 beenadded to the text and Reference section. These are:
22. We should like to thank the referees for their helpful comments and hopethat we have now produced a more balance and better account of our work. Wetrust that the revised manuscript is acceptable for publication.
23. I greatly appreciate both your help and that of the referees concerningimprovement to this paper. I hope that the revised manuscript is now suitablefor publication.
24. I should like to express my appreciation to you and the referees forsuggesting how to improve our paper.
25. I apologize for the delay in revising the manuscript. This was due to ourdoing an additional experiment, as suggested by referees

本文来源：https://www.2haoxitong.net/k/doc/e3d9e71e227916888486d70d.html