【正文】 SCI投稿信件的一些套話(整理)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 sincerely2. 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 ments from the reviewers.二、詢問有無收到稿件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、詢問論文審查回音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、關(guān)于論文的總體審查意見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 wellwritten 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 municate 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、給編輯的回信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 position of the rea