2016年2月23日10:56:19 评论浏览:168

Dear Editors,

We dispatched our manuscript (manuscript ID 8558192903066551) to your journal about ten weeks ago. We have not yet received a reply and am wondering whether you have reached a decision. We fear that our submission process does not meet the requirements and should be grateful if you kindly give us some information regarding the status of the manuscript.

Thanks for your information.

With kind regards.




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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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?


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 (page**, paragraph**).

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


1. 一般投稿以后,不要有事没有事经常写信给编辑.总体来说,这些编辑都很认真负责的.我们只用静侯佳音即可;

2. 所有编辑都很忙,而且有很多人同时担任多个杂志的编辑,且大多数都是兼职而非专职,所以我们应该体谅他们,尽量不要给他们制造"麻烦";

3. 不同杂志有不同的程序和周期,我们一般可以从已经发表的文章当中看到相关信息:received:***; revised:***;accepted***;所以我们应该心中有数;

4. 应该注意的是:不同文章的处理周期不可能是千篇一律的,有时长一点也不足为怪;

5. 一般杂志的周期应该在3个月之内,所以我觉得3个月以上的情况,应该是可以写信询问的.当然也可以再等一段时间;

6. 我们可以想想,如果我们自己是编辑,接到这样的来信,收到稿件不到一个月就急着询问结果,而且天天收到很多这样的信件,我们心里会怎么想呢?而且有些时候,好象没有办法去细细与作者解释.所以我们写信也没有用,还不如不写。

下面是UKchinese 战友的一个帖子,回复状态一直是Under Review,而日期有一直在变化的疑问,有参考价值。值得注意的是:有些网上投稿系统是不显示日期的,如Scholar One...


状态一直是Under Review,而日期在变,有以下几种情况:

1. 如果杂志需要2或3名审稿人,从第一个审稿人接受审稿,第二个审稿人接受审稿,第三个审稿人接受审稿, 到第一个审稿人审稿意见返回,第二个审稿人审稿意见返回,第三个审稿人审稿意见返回,这期间都是Under Review;

2. 当然也有审稿人审稿接受审稿一段时间后又拒绝审稿的情况,这时编辑得寻找新的审稿人;

3. 还有审稿人的审稿意见不能按照规定的时间返回编辑手里,这时编辑得催促审稿人,在得不到有效答复后,寻找新的审稿人;

4. 还有审稿人的审稿意见返回编辑手里,但编辑认为缺乏水平,他会采取不信任处理,也要寻找新的审稿人;

5. 还有审稿人的审稿意见返回编辑手里,但编辑认为太简单,没有足够的参考信息,他也会寻找新的审稿人;

6. 两个审稿人的意见非常矛盾,这时编辑也会考虑增加审稿人...

  • 本文由 发表于 2016年2月23日10:56:19
  • 除非特殊声明,本站文章均为原创,转载请务必保留本文链接


匿名网友 填写信息

:?: :razz: :sad: :evil: :!: :smile: :oops: :grin: :eek: :shock: :???: :cool: :lol: :mad: :twisted: :roll: :wink: :idea: :arrow: :neutral: :cry: :mrgreen: