【文章內容簡介】 38) and 2 (line 611). These do not affect our interpretation of the result.2. I have read the referee’s ments 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 ments concerning our manuscript entitled “”. We have studied their ments 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 ments of the reviewers. Revised portion are underlined in red.6. We found the referee’s ments most helpful and have revised the manuscript7. We are pleased to note the favorable ments 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 pleted 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 ments concerning Figures 1 and 2 result from a misinterpretation of the data.12. We would have include a nonprotein 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 ments 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.本文來自:小木蟲論壇反駁審稿人意見的范文Dear Editor,As the corresponding author, I received an which informed me that our manuscript (Ref: ……) has been rejected. A referee’s report, as a standard procedure, has been attached to it.I have not the slightest grudge against the rejection. However, the referee’s report is quite unconvincing, or, if I may say, somewhat irresponsible. I understand that ||| is an honorable organization which has a distinct reputation of being most conscientious toward all the submissions around the world. Those careless remarks in the report might jeopardize the good image which ||| has been well upholding. So I consider it a selfimposed obligation to point it out.Just for the sake of argument, please allow me to cite the first and the only referee’s report below.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.SCI論文全攻略之構思與撰文(1)注意句子上下連貫，不能讓句子獨立。常見的連接詞有，However, also, in addition, consequently, afterwards, moreover, Furthermore, further, although, unlike, in contrast, Similarly, Unfortunately, alternatively, parallel results, In order to, despite, For example, Compared with, other res