篇一：投稿简历
面试问题汇总
1． 语言表达、仪表
2． 工作经验
3．应聘动机与期望
4． 事业心、进取心、自信心
5． 工作态度、组织纪律性、诚实可靠性
1
6． 分析判断能力
7． 应变能力
8． 自知力、自控力
9． 组织协调能力、人力关系与适应能力
10．
精力、活力与兴趣、爱好
2
11． 专业知识水平及特长
3
篇二：投稿要求和作者简介
投稿要求和作者简介
所来稿件必须注明作者详细联系方式 ，如邮编、详细的邮寄地址、工作单位、联系电话。
作者简介（姓名，性别、出生年、籍贯、职务、职称、学历、研究方向，工作单位）等。
篇三：SCI投稿信件的一些套话
SCI投稿信件的一些套话
Please acknowledge receipt of this e-mail
Response to reviewers
reviewer 1
question 1 ...XX.........
answer:......... (pageXX, LineXX )
文字修改
*******（原来的意见）
corrected ******（(pageXX, LineXX )）
就是让他一眼就看出来你改了，在那里？如何改的
投稿: contribution, paper contribution from P. R. China
Notification of Acceptance / Rejection
ACCEPTANCE LETTER
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 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. 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,
Sorry for disturbing you. It is more than 25 weeks since I submitted our manuscript entitled ―TCF BLEACHING OF EUCALYPTUS UROPHYLLA×EUCALYPTUS GRANDIS LH 107 OXYGEN DELIGNIFIED KRAFT PULP—PARTIAL Mg2+/Ca2+ SUBSTITUTION FOR CHELANTS‖ by post on a CD for possible publication in your journal ―Cellulose Chemistry and Technology‖. I have not yet received a reply
and am wondering whether you have reached a decision. I should appreciate your letting me know what you have decided as soon as possible. Thank you in advance for your help. Attached please find the word version of my paper entitled "TCF BLEACHING OF EUCALYPTUS UROPHYLLA×EUCALYPTUS GRANDIS LH 107 OXYGEN DELIGNIFIED KRAFT PULP—PARTIAL Mg2+/Ca2+ SUBSTITUTION FOR CHELANTS" with the kind request to consider it for publication in the journal Cellulose Chemistry and Technology.
Best Regards,
Sincerely,
Xue-Fei Zhou
Dear Cristina Irimia,
Sorry for disturbing you. It is more than 3 weeks since I submitted our revised manuscript (No. 4387) for possible publication in your journal Cellulose Chemistry and Technology. I have not yet received a ACCEPTANCE LETTER by e-mail and I am wondering whether you have reached a decision. I should appreciated your letting me know what you have decided as soon as possible.
Best Regards,
Sincerely,
Xue-Fei Zhou
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 referee’s main criticism of paper, it is possible to say that –
One minor point raised 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). These 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.
Dear Ms. Parisa Morovati,
Thanks for your kind help in this matter.
I enclosed a sole submission form and a potential reviewers.
Sincerely Yours,
Xue-Fei Zhou
I enclosed a revised manuscript which includes a report of additional experiments done at the referee’s suggestion. You will see that 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 our manuscript is acceptable for publication in Cancer Res
9. We have therefore completed a further series 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 essential to the contents of the paper.
11. I feel that the reviewer’s comments concerning Figures 1 and 2 result from a