1. 修改了3次 都是因为参考文献有问题
参考文献是很重要的
你应该篇要投期刊的已发表文章做参考，看文中是按作者年，还是按序号引用，另外，如果是多个作者，第一个作者后面是否有逗号；
在参考文献列表中，要注意
1、参考文献姓后面是否需要逗号，名的缩写后是否有逗号，是否有空格
2、三个及以上参考文献应该全部列出；
3、期刊是全写还是缩写，是正体还是斜体，是否是黑体
4、引用文章的题名第一个字母是否大写
5、页码后面是否有点号；
6、引用书或报告等是否需要列出页码；
7、页码之间是用－还是用~；
8、你需要注意的是大小写，正斜体、标点符号、空格、缩写、等，一定要把每个参考文献都仔细对一次；
编辑很看重参考文献的格式是否正确，因为决定你是否认真，所以还是要好好修改
目前我也只能提供这么多，你自己还是仔细看一下期刊的说明，和期刊中的文章。不要恢心，仔细修改，一定没什么问题。
2. 论文被退回来了！要改不知道怎么改，请教高人！
However, before we can proceed with your submission we ask you to address the following:
1) Corresponding author information should be included in the title page.
2) Please type your whole manuscript with double line spacing.
3) In text citation of figures should be in sequential order.
这些都是什么意思哦？呵呵！该怎么改呢？请教高人！
1）标题页应该含有通讯作者信息（单位，email，有的期刊要留电话等）；
2）两行间距
3）整个文章的图片连续编号 submitting
3.    论文投稿中的一些套话（emuch）
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 are putable 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 commu
nicate 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 –

版权声明：本站内容均来自互联网，仅供演示用，请勿用于商业和其他非法用途。如果侵犯了您的权益请与我们联系QQ:729038198，我们将在24小时内删除。