Dr. XU Jianhe
The State Key Laboratory of Bioreactor Engineering
East China University of Science and Technology, Shanghai 200237, China
Tel: +86-21-64252498; Fax: +86-21-64252250
Elsevier 投稿各种状态总结
1. Submitted to Journal当上传结束后，显示的状态是Submitted to Journal，这个状态是自然形成的无需处理。
2. With editor如果在投稿的时候没有要求选择编辑，就先到主编那，主编会分派给别的编辑。这当中就会有另两个状态：
3. Editor assigned
4. Editor Declined Invitation
如果编辑接手处理了就会邀请审稿人了。
5. Reviewer(s) invited
如果审稿人接受那就会是以下状态：
6. Under review
这应该是一个漫长的等待。当然前面各步骤也可能很慢的，要看编辑的处理情况。
如果被邀请审稿人不想审，就会decline，编辑会重新邀请别的审稿人。
7. required review completed 审稿结束，等编辑处理。
8. Decision in Process到了这一步就快要有结果了，编辑开始考虑是给修改还是直接拒，当然也有可能直接接受的，但可能性很小，呵呵。
9. Minor revision/Major revision这个时候可以稍微庆祝一下了，问题不大了，因为有修改就有可能。具体怎么改就不多说了，谦虚谨慎是不可少的。
10. Revision Submitted to Journal
又开始了一个循环。
11. Accepted如果不要再审，只是小修改，编辑看后会马上显示这个状态，但如果要再审也会有上面的部分状态。一步会比较快，但也有慢的。看杂志的。

还有个状态是Rejected。希望不要出现。


其他库的状态，基本是大同小异，供参考：


In the Rapid Review® system, your manuscript has a different status assigned to it at various stages in the process. Below is a list of the status descriptions used with brief explanations.
you have begun the submission process. The submission has been assigned a temporary (TMP) manuscript number. You must complete the submission process.
Finish by viewing and approving the MS PDF. Once this is done, the submission will be assigned a permanent manuscript number.
MS the manuscript is pending a quality check by the staff or editor. This involves verifying that the MS PDF contains a complete manuscript (text, tables, figures, etc.) and is suitable for review purposes.
Conversion to PDF If the manuscript was submitted digitally, the MS PDF did not pass the QC process and is not suitable for review purposes. The staff may be in the process of converting the digital files to a new MS PDF or staff may have requested that the author send new file(s). The Journal Office is waiting for the file(s) to upload for conversion purposes.
MS if you submitted a manuscript to a journal whose review process includes pre-screening, this status indicates that the manuscript (or the abstract) is currently being pre-screened to determine its appropriateness for the journal.
MS the manuscript has been assigned to an editor and may be awaiting reviewer selections, or the awaiting reviews.
the manuscript has been reviewed and the editor is in the process of making a decision.
MS in Revision (Optional)... a decision to accept the paper with optional revisions (as suggested in the reviewer or editor comments) has been made by the editor, and a letter requesting these revisions has been sent to the author. Resubmission is anticipated.
MS in Revision (Minor)... a decision to accept the paper with minor revisions (as suggested in the reviewer or editor comments) has been made by the editor, and a letter requesting these revisions has been sent to the author. Resubmission is anticipated.
MS in Revision (Major)... a decision to reconsider the paper after major revisions (as suggested in the reviewer or editor comments) has been made by the editor, and a letter requesting these revisions has been sent to the author. Resubmission is permitted.
a decision to decline publication has been made by the editor, and a rejection letter has been sent to the author.
a decision to accept the paper has been made by the editor, and an acceptance letter has been sent to the author.
the manuscript has been withdrawn at the author's request. No resubmission is permitted. Any further version must be considered as a brand new submission.
the manuscript has been deactivated due to the author's non-response in resubmitting a revised version or, in some instances, to the editor's invitation to submit a
solicited paper.
the review process is complete and the manuscript is awaiting publication or it has already been published.
Invitation/Submit the editor has extended to you an invitation to submit a paper on a proposed topic. You are asked to reply by using the "Reply to Invitation" button. If you and the editor are in agreement, you can submit the invited paper by using the "Submit Invited MS" button.
It can be concluded from the discussion that
E-mail: 
cover letter包含的内容比较丰富，比如作者信息，论文信息，推荐审稿人，论文创新之处等。
comments写写与你论文相关的内容，主要还是吹自己的工作。
作者: bioman  发布日期: 2006-10-27
还有，cover letter有些是审稿人可见的，comment是不对审稿人开放的。
SCI投稿信件的一些套话 整理收藏 ：）
作者: andyfu125  发布日期: 2007-9-20    查看数: 5267  出自:
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.
Dear Editors:
  It is nearly 6 weeks since the “Current Status” of our manuscript (No: ENZMICTEC-D-09-00623) has been “Under Review” in your journal (Enzyme and Microbial Technology). I would really appreciate it if you inform useditor assigned很久了会不会被拒 what you have decided as soon as possible. Thank you very much!
                                                        Kind regards
Yours sincerely
Chun Li
Corresponding Author: Li Chun
Corresponding Author's Institution:
School of Life Science, Beijing Institute of Technology
e-mail:
Tel: +1

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.

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。