篇一：英文杂志投稿经验
英文投稿的一点经验
1. 首先一定要注意杂志的发表范围, 超出范围的千万别投,要不就是浪费时间;另外，每个杂志都有他们的具体格式要求，一定要按照他们的要求把论文写好，免得浪费时间，前些时候，我的一个同事向一个著名的英文杂志投稿，由于格式问题，人家过两个星期就退回来了，而且说了很多难听的话，说投稿前首先就应该看清楚他们的格式要求。
2. 论文写作一定要言简意赅,特别是摘要,引言和结论部分,特别是摘要和结论不能重复,发现有很多论文这两部分没有差别, 个人认为, 摘要是引人入胜的"药引子",要留悬念;而结论是你论文得出的有证据的东西,要简单明了(很多人写了一大堆,把推测的结果都写上,这种论文质量很差); 另外,很多人认为数据越多, 发表的可能性越大,但经过读一些论文, 发现很多人的论文很烂, 感觉就是数据的简单堆积,所以,论文的重点应该在观点上,保证一篇论文一个新观点,已经足够了.
3. 投稿时,一定要找和你做研究内容相近领域的专家作评阅人,最好是国外的,不是说国内的不好,但就怕有人和你(或你老板)有过节,而且国内的很多所谓专家水平一般,且小心眼;
4. cover letter要简单介绍你的工作的创新性,这样便于论文的快速发表, 当然也应该客气几句,让编辑感到心里舒服,主要是夸杂志好之类的话; 有人写coverletter，就是写上题目、然后说很荣幸投稿之类地话，也有人干脆把摘要全写上，这样个人认为不好，一定用两到三句话说明你论文“新”在哪，这个非常重要。
5. 前些时候看到论坛上很多人说不能写信催编辑,个人认为没关系,必要催信能够让人重视你的论文,一定要让人感到,你的论文在这发不了,好多地方在等着发呢(但很多牛杂志,可不吃这套哟，人家不缺稿，嘿嘿). 当然写信的时候要客气,说一些快速发表对于学术讨论和促进工作等方面的重要性之类的话;
6. 能写英文,就不投中文稿, 特别是不投中文杂志英文版, 好不容易憋了篇英文,还投到低水平的杂志,很不甘心; 最重要的是国内杂志要钱，而国外很多不要。自从国内某杂志告诉我他们之所以收我很高的版面费是为了他们的生存时，我发誓包括以后我的学生就不再投中文杂志了（如果要投，对做材料的人，个人认为金属学报不错，目前收费低）；
7. 坚持就是胜利, 按照审稿人的建议好好改你的论文, 只要坚持投稿, 就一定能够被接收的, 如果论文被某杂志拒稿, 但不提倡降低杂志质量再投（应该根据审稿人意见修改后找合适的杂志）;有人认为低影响因子的杂志一定中的几率高, 我也这么认为,但一般低影响因子的杂志论文出稿比较慢!
8. 英语不好没关系，是人都知道我们英语没英国和美国人地道，但只要能表达清楚你要表达的意思就好了，而且等审稿人提出来时，一定要从头到尾改一遍，你会发现，这样多次发论文后，你的英语写作水平在一天天提高，拿两年前的论文过来，自己都感觉写得很烂。哈哈。（有好几次，一些审稿人总说我英语不好，这肯定是母语为英语的审稿人，但回信中，我只能说俺英语不好，地球人都知道，但个人认为英语在科技论文里主要是能让人懂我们的思想就够了，而且我也没有太多的钱去让某些改论文的公司帮我做这些事）。
再加两封催稿信!英语不好，但意思表达到了。
第一封,客气点!
Dear Prof. Dr. Editor ***
I submitted our latest work to your journal *** last November. I want to know the review process. If there are some reponses from the reviewers. Would you please tell me the results so that I can
deal with it as early as possible Please understand me that fast publication of our work is important for me.
I appreciate your contribution to the publication of the high quality papers.
Kind thanks to you for your care.
Best Regards
Yours sincerely
第二封, 很不客气了,他们刚开始说他们的审稿周期很短,但近四个月了,也没消息,所以打算投别的地方.
Dear Dr. Prof. ***
I am sorry to make you in trouble. It takes too long for reviewing my manuscript (***) which was submitted to Journal "***". Generally, only about two months are necessary for the reviewing process on my usual submissions to other Journals. Hence, I decide to withdraw this submission.
I am sorry to make this decision. Please understand my condition because the rapid publication of my work is important for me and our group.
I hope that I have chance to get a rapid publication in this Journal in future.
Thank you for your attention and kind help.
Best Regards
Yours sincerely
from:http://chl033.woku.com/article/2721025.html
1、对于我们工科的学生，要想写出论文来，必须有充足的数据及结论作为支撑，这里所说的数据不一定要很多，主要看你这些数据是否可以证明你论文中的结论。
2、在写论文时，不要把实验数据或图表往论文上面一放，只有描述而没有解释，这是编辑或审稿人最不想看到的文章，如果论文属于这一类，评论信中多半会说这样的论文为实验报告，其实编辑和审稿人他们有时也想知道你是如何做出来的，为什么，也在学习。
3、在做实验前，就要考虑写论文了，不要等到作了很多试验，到头来全是：无用！那就惨了。我的经验就是，在试验前，你要考虑为什么要做这试验（实验背景及目的），怎么来做（实验步骤），根据自己的经验猜测可能会得到什么样的结果（结论），通过这样考虑之后，一篇论文的结构基本上出来了，就等着看结果到底如何了，如果和自己猜想的一样，自然可以写论文按照预先设好的步骤。一旦结果不一样，那就要恭喜你了，因为其中有很多东西需要你更深入的研究，可能还会有更大地创新内容。
4、对于写文章，文笔也相当重要，有很好的数据结论但是表达不清楚也不行，应为编辑和审稿人必须为他们的杂志前途着想，他们想让更多的人来读他们的杂志从而提高影响力，所以表达必须很清楚，能够让专业人士和相关学科的人都能够看明白你的论文意思。如果你的文笔不是很好，那就先看一看和你论文类似的文章，档次越高越好，看看别人如何表达的，相似的地方可以模仿。
5、在论文经过自己几次修改后，放他一两天，再回过头来看看，如果自己觉得没有问题，
那就给自己课题组有经验的老师或同学看看，看他们给你提出的意见（自己要判断是否可取了）。
6、选择期刊很重要，要不然你投出去后，好消息的就几天退回，坏消息就是几个月退回说不符合杂志范围。选择期刊要根据自己论文的内容，是否和期刊的作者指南相符，此时你最好选者几个不同档次的期刊，从高到低排列，预备被退稿。选择好期刊后，严格按照期刊的投稿要求对论文进行排版，否则你的论文会被编辑退回（这样的论文不在少数），然后大胆地投出去，不管它中不中。
7、等待，特别是第一篇，等待是一个难熬的日子，总是希望投稿后很快就能够收到消息，我曾经也经历过，这也是一个成长过程。
8、收到消息有三种情况，一、接收，恭喜！二、拒绝，不要气馁，你可以认为编辑或审稿人不识货，当然要认真看拒绝信，看编辑或审稿人给你的评论，这就是你论文向能够发表前进了一步（一定要坚持，成为“拒无霸”就差不多了），修改后投向预先选好的档次低一点的杂志，命中率就提高了。三、修改后再看，这就是一种无定性条件，这种情况一定要认真对待，认真修改，有条件叫有经验的老师帮助。
9、如果你的论文曾经被一个期刊发表过，接下来所作的工作继续投向这个期刊，命中率就大多了。
我写出来我的经验，仅供大家参考，结合自己的情况进行处理。
1. 对于影响因子。有的影响因子（IF）很高，50／60.比《Science》和《Nature》的还要高。可能有一下原因：
1）排名靠前的，一般都是综述类期刊被引用率当然高。多为一些学会的年度报告什么的，大多是一些综述性文章，一年也就一期，一期也就几十篇
2）“综合类”的排名一般比“专业类”的高。
3）有些“不要钱”的比要钱的高，像《Science》和《Nature》上的文章一般30美元／一篇。而很多其他国家、政府和其他机构给于经济支持的都不要钱。但并不是说要钱的都不是好文章。
2. 如何选择期刊。是不是只看影响因子高的？
个人认为肯定不是，上面说了。“综合类”的一般比“专业类”的IF高。所以，即使你投的专业类的IF没有综合的高，但是这个综合类的杂志在“业内”人士心中比较高。所以可以选择你所做领域的“权威级”刊物。
发文章的目的是为了能有更多的人可以看到你的工作，所有一定要发到跟你的研究方向最吻合的杂志。
3. 一般美国的杂志对语言要求最低，文风很自由.，你只要没有什么太大的语法错误，一般审稿人都不会说什么．对语言要求最苛刻的就是英国德国
4. 很多好杂志是不要版面费的，就算要版面费，好像学校有规定可以报销，所以大家可以放心大胆的投。不要因为版面费的问题而顾虑。并不说要版面费的都是差的杂志，但有的可以申请减免。
5. 一定要选对杂志！每个杂志都要他的侧重点和内容要求。比如：有的相似的两种杂志，有的侧重“理论”像美国的《PHYTOPATHOLOGY》，而有的侧重于“应用”和其他方面。如《PLANT DIS》.
其次还有格式，每个杂志都它自己的格式（包括图表什么样，图片什么样），要看清楚投稿
6. 一些误区：
a）是不是国外的杂志都是SCI，这点肯定不是，有很多人见到一篇英文的文章就以为是SCI，还有写杂志的中文版是被SCI收录的。有人把《Science》杂志认为是SCI。有人拿本重大学报上的问我影响因子是多少？我真的无法回答。好像我国某个部门好像也在给个杂志算什么影响因子，都是时候把我都搞晕了。好像各个学报在国内是有个什么影响因子。对于这个我也不是很清楚。
b）SCI是不是高不可攀。这个各个专业、各个学科差距确实很大，有的就非常好发这个没办法。只怪我们选错行了。就我这个方向来说没有那么难。
一般高水平的文章需要有些创新。最好是方法学的创新，但是方法学的创新没有那么容易。一般可以改进一下。其次，中国是一个大国，别人要发文章一般要看国内外研究现状，也需要中国的研究现状，就需要我们的论文发出去。所以，如果你没法进行方法学的创新那就在实验材料上占优势，
中国这么大的地方，很可能别人收集的实验材料没有你齐全，所以你再材料上就有了优势，就做了别人没有做过的工作，就极有可能发高水平的论文。
再次.写论文其实就相当讲故事，你如何讲一个平淡无奇的故事讲的趣味昂然．一定要把自己的卖点突出来。
所以大家如果觉得自己的工作做的不错都可以试试往好的杂志投。
7 大胆投稿的好处
不管你写的好不好（当然不能太差，错误一大堆），一定要大胆的投稿。老外审稿都是非常认真的，一般你打一些小的拼写错位都会帮你指出来。需要补做那些实验，还有很多好的建议。他们会一一给你指出来。所以即使你的论文没有被接收，也会得到大量的修改和建议。这样你的就可以接着补做实验，而且文章也变的更好了。说不定论文就上了一个新的层次，可以投更高水平的杂志。
当然，有很多人不愿意补做实验，或者做实验不划算，赶时间毕业，混文凭......就把自己的论文降一个档次。投在了较低的刊物上。感觉不可取。
8 如何安排写论文的时间。
一般SCI从提交稿件到审结束大概要1～2个月，所以一般大多数人都是做完实验之后再写的，而我们刚开始写英文的论文时很慢，一般要一两个月，这样周期就长了。所以我们可以一般做实验一般写论文。因为论文有的部分是固定的，一旦你的实验技术路线出来了你的材料与方法，前面的引言中的国外内外研究现状、背景，所用的方法部分，都可以写了，然后出来一个什么结果就可以像“填空“一样往里面加，最后讨论，摘要，编排格式。
『注意』：论文的讨论部分很重要，不要说空话。平时做实验室就要留心，多想想出现的现象，问题应该怎么解释。
9 参考文献。
如果你参考的文章很多，到时候可能找你的论文中引用的参考文献可能都要一个月，而又不能胡乱写，老外是很看重这个的，他通常会抽取一篇你的参考文献，看看你是不是引用的上面的，有没有引用错误等等。所以在你读文先的时候，可以做读书笔记，把好的，你认为有用的部分摘抄下来或者用电脑粘贴复制下来，注好是那篇文章、那些作者。这样就会节约很
『注意』：不要乱写参考文献，只要引用的都要要注明，没有引用的不要往里面写。把有价值的东西做好“读书笔记”，节约写论文中编排参考文献的时间。
『注意』：a 参考文献最好有1／3甚至1／2以上是近5年内的文献，这样的论文会让人感觉有水平些。b 其次，最好找一手的文献，不要那种二手的文献。
10.如何应对和回答审稿人提出的问题。
对于审稿人提出的问题，要认真回答，你可以不同意他的看法，但要注意措辞，做到“不卑不亢”！就行，把你的观点论据陈述好。
a.所有问题必须逐条回答。
b.尽量满足意见中需要补充的实验。
c.满足不了的也不要回避，说明不能做的合理理由。
d.审稿人推荐的文献一定要引用，并讨论透彻。
再就是格式上要些清楚：
1. 2.
Q:...... Q:......
A:...... A:......
要一目了然，让评审看的舒服。不要吧所有的问题混在一块回答。自己看的都烦，不知道回答的是哪个。
*补充：
11. 对于选杂志
对于选杂志确实比较困难，首先要选“对口的杂志”，对于影响因子暂不提。杂志从接受手稿到发表的周期很重要。很多你做的工作别人也在同时进行着。很可能你的工作先完成的，而你投的杂志周期很长，别人后完成的，但是投的杂志周期很短，可能会先于你的发表。这就很郁闷的。所以选杂志要注意周期。至于怎么选确实很困难。
首先：你可以看看发表的论文从接收到正式出版要多少时间。其次：那就是问问投过那些杂志的人。可以问下和你做相似实验，并且投过你感兴趣的那些杂志的师兄师姐们。也可以在网上求助和搜集信息。总之，选择杂志是很很复杂的事情，要综合考虑。
12. 写论文时，首先：不要一味的贬低别人的论文的价值，不要动不动就拿自己的“优点”与他人的“缺点”比。要对别人的工作做“客观的评价”。
其次：忌讳用最高级，什么最先进、原创....除非你实实在在的、从根本上是原创的。 from:http://chl033.woku.com/article/2718239.html
如果你希望你的会议论文被EI收录，请参照以下经验：
一、会议论文出版社：会议EI收录其实与主办方关系很小，甚至没有任何关系，第一要素主要处决于论文会议集的出版单位，根据经验，例举全球著名出版社如下：
1、德国斯普林格出版社（SPRINGER）：100%EI收录
2、美国机械工程学会出版社（ASME）：100%EI收录
3、美国土木工程学会出版社（ASCE）：100%EI收录
篇二：英文论文投稿信—相关
1. Submit paper
1.1 例文1
Dear Editor,
We would like to submit the enclosed manuscript entitled "GDNF Acutely Modulates Neuronal Excitability and A-type Potassium Channels in Midbrain Dopaminergic Neurons", which we wish to be considered for publication in Nature Neuroscience.
GDNF has long been thought to be a potent neurotrophic factor for the survival of midbrain dopaminergic neurons, which are degenerated in Parkinson’s disease. In this paper, we report an unexpected, acute effect of GDNF on A-type potassium channels, leading to a potentiation of neuronal excitability, in the dopaminergic neurons in culture as well as in adult brain slices. Further, we show that GDNF regulates the K+ channels through a mechanism that involves activation of MAP kinase. Thus, this study has revealed, for the first time, an acute modulation of ion channels by GDNF. Our findings challenge the classic view of GDNF as a long-term survival factor for midbrain dopaminergic neurons, and suggest that the normal function of GDNF is to regulate neuronal excitability, and consequently dopamine release. These results may also have implications in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease.
Due to a direct competition and conflict of interest, we request that Drs. XXX of Harvard Univ., and YY of Yale Univ. not be considered as reviewers. With thanks for your consideration, I amSincerely yours,
1.2 例文2
Dear Editor,
We would like to submit the enclosed manuscript entitled "Ca2+-binding protein frequenin mediates GDNF-induced potentiation of Ca2+ channels and transmitter release", which we wish to be considered for publication in Neuron.
We believe that two aspects of this manuscript will make it interesting to general readers of Neuron. First, we report that GDNF has a long-term regulatory effect on neurotransmitter release at the neuromuscular synapses. This provides the first physiological evidence for a role of this new family of neurotrophic factors in functional synaptic transmission. Second, we show that the GDNF effect is mediated by enhancing the expression of the Ca2+-binding protein frequenin. Further, GDNF and frequenin facilitate synaptic transmission by enhancing Ca2+ channel activity,
leading to an enhancement of Ca2+ influx. Thus, this study has identified, for the first time, a molecular target that mediates the long-term, synaptic action of a neurotrophic factor. Our findings may also have general implications in the cell biology of neurotransmitter release.
1.3 例文3
Dear Editor:
Enclosed are copies of a manuscript entitled "BDNF and NT-4/5 Promote the Development of Long-Term Potentiation in the Hippocampus", which we wish to be considered for publication in Nature.As you know, there is a great deal of interest and excitement recently in understanding the role of neurotrophins in synapse development and plasticity. Our manuscript provides, for the first time, the physiological evidence that neurotrophins regulate long-term potentiation (LTP). The main point of the paper is that the neurotrophins BDNF and NT-4 induce an earlier appearance of LTP in developing hippocampus.In contrast to recent Science article by XX's group, we (and several other LTP groups) did not see that BDNF enhance basal synaptic transmission in adullt hippocampus. However, we found that in adult hippocampus, inhibition of BDNF/TrkB activity attenuated LTP, and weak tetanus that normally cannot induce LTP produced enduring LTP. These findings may have implications in the basic mechanism for regulation of synapse development and long-term modulation of synaptic efficacy.
Because of the rather competitive nature of the field and the important implication of our findings, we have not yet presented this work in any public forum. However, confidential discussion with several prominent neuroscientists such as 111 and 222 have generated tremendous excitement. Thus, we feel that this work is of general interest and is suitable for publication in Nature. We would like to suggest Drs. aaa of Yale Univ., bbb of Harvard Medical School, and ccc of Univ. of California-Berkeley, as reviewers for this manuscript. Due to a direct competition and conflict of interest, we request that Dr. XX and YY. not be considered as reviewers.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
1．5英文投稿的模版信1
发信站: 两全其美 BBS (Wed Jun 8 20:57:42 2005), 转信(lqqm.net)
Dear Sir,
We are submitting a manuscript entitled “XXXXX” for your kind consideration for publication in XXXX.
In this manuscript, we report a novel approach ..............
We would be grateful if the manuscript could be reviewed and considered for publication in this journal.
1．6英文投稿的模版信2
Dear Professor ×××:
One of my paper, which has a title of “××××”, is hoped to be published in your journal . Please take it into your consideration for publication.
If you need any more information concerning the manuscript please write to me. I am looking forward to hearing from you.
Best regards
××××
1．7英文投稿的模版信3
PLoS Genetics
I submit the accompanying manuscript entitled “Gain and loss of multiple genes during the evolution of Helicobacter pylori” by H. Gressmann et al. for publication in PLoS Genetics.
This manuscript presents the global variability within H. pylori in terms of presence or absence of almost all the genes within the two currently available genome sequences. The strains tested are representative of the global genetic diversity within H. pylori and also represent the diverse populations that exist in that organism. Global analyses of genomic content are very rare indeed for bacterial species and are new for H. pylori. By including isolates from the most closely related species, H. acinonychis, as an outgroup, it was possible to deduce that most variable genes were probably present in the last common ancestor of H. pylori and have subsequently been lost in individual isolates. In some cases, the same genes were lost in phylogenetically distinct groupings, reflecting convergent evolution. However, the cag PAI was acquired later, after subpopulations had formed. These conclusions are important for concepts about changes in gene content within species and for the acquisition of pathogenicity islands.
We also perform a head-to-head comparison of population structure indicated by whole genome microarrays versus that indicated by sequences of 7 housekeeping gene fragments. The comparison indicates that microarrays yield distorted population structures and are less suitable for this goal than simply sequencing 7 gene fragments. In order to be able to deduce patterns of gain or loss, it was necessary to have an independent population structure based on sequence diversity within core genes. This is an important conclusion because many laboratories are attempting to investigate bacterial population structure on the basis of microarray data on their own and have not realized that an independent population structure is necessary for such efforts..
The manuscript will be of great interest to the numerous scientists interested in infections caused by H. pylori as well as to scientists interested in microbial genomic structure and evolution.
The following scientists, with whom I have had no contact regarding this manuscript are potentially suitable reviewers:
1.
2. Michael McClelland, Sidney Kimmel Cancer Centre, San Diego, CA Al Ivens, Pathogen microarrays, Sanger Center, Hinxten Hall, Cambridge, UK
3.
4.
5. Antonello Covacci, IRIS, Chiron Vaccines, Siena, Italy Paul O’Toole, University of Cork, Ireland J?rg Hacker, University of Würzburg, Germany I request that Doug Berg not be used as a reviewer due to potential conflict of interest.
Sincerely,
Mark Achtman, PhD
2. When your paper gets rejected — without review
Dear Editor,
I would appreciate if you could reconsider to review our manuscript, “111." We feel strongly that this is an important subject that touches one of the central dogmas in neuroscience: xxx. It is also very timely, given the publication of the paper by X and Y entitled “222” in the latest issue of Nature Neuroscience. In this paper, the authors xxx. They claimed that xxx. When a paper this provocative has been published by a high profile journal like Nature Neuroscience, we believe that it is worth giving a benefit of doubts. It will be helpful if there are papers that consider other alternative interpretations, or attempt to replicate in the same or different systems.
We have observed similar xxx, but we have a completely different interpretation. We found that 1) xxx 2) xxx; 3) xxx. Thus, our paper raises the possibility that xxx reported by X and Y were due to xxx. Specifically, we would like you to consider the following two issues: First, X and Y used aaa, while we used bbb. sssssssss. Second, ccc used by X and Y may not be so specific.
In addition to the drastically different opinions regarding xxx, we feel that our findings on xxx is also significant in yyy and will be of interests to general readers of Nature Neuroscience. We therefore did not write our paper to directly challenge the paper by X and Y. However, we will
be willing to re-write the paper in ways you think that will help debate on this important issue.
3. When your paper gets rejected — with review
Dear Dr. xx,
We received with some surprise your letter of November 4, rejecting this manuscript on the basis of one reviewer’s opinion which you “found persuasive”. We wish to indicat(本文来自：WWW.xiaocaoFanwEn.cOM 小草范文网:英语论文投稿)e our dissatisfaction with this reviewer’s comments, which appear to ignore the new experiments submitted as part of the revised manuscript.
This reviewer states: “111.” This was precisely the point of the xxx experiment which indicated that there were no such deficits.
This reviewer further states: “222.” Again, this is a mystifying statement as the detailed rebuttal accompanying this letter described the xxx. Did the reviewer not understand that xxx?
Finally, concerning the proposal for a xxx experiment, we believe that you and this reviewer already know that xxx. Thus, it is impossible to do such experiments.
While we recognize that the final decision is yours, we feel that reviewer#1 is being ueasonable. We would greatly appreciate it if you would submit this manuscript, reviewer#1’s comments, and our rebuttals, to an additional unbiased reviewer. We would be most surprised if the new reviewer would see the comments of the reviewer#1 as reasonable, but if he/she did so, we would accept a negative decision gracefully.
4. 催审稿
4.1 例文1
(我写的，见笑了！）
Dear editor,
Thank you for your reading this mail.
I submit a paper entitled "………… " in November last year and this paper has been reviewed for more than five months now. I haven't received the Referees' comments on it.
I respectfully wish for the comments soon, thank you!
Once again, thank you very much for your consideration.
篇三：英语论文投稿用各种信件及语句
一、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，
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 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. 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 Research with minor revision.
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 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 clear from the
new paragraph inserted at the end of the Results section.
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 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 laser action on chromosome has been included (page16, paragraph 2).
19. We included a new set of photographs with better definition than those 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 and hope that we have now produced a more balance and better account of our work. We trust that the revised 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 revised 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