英文投稿常用（自己收集、整理、总结）

英文投稿常用信件

1、Cover letter（附信，一般是作为单独文档提交）

Covering letter 经常是国外求职者简历里的一部分，一般在求职信中简要介绍自己的情况，以及你要申请的职位。在投稿时主要是介绍一下文章的整体情况，要求短小精悍，应该包括题目，署名作者及次序，文章类别，要说明说有作者都同意在该刊物发表，并强调之前未被其他刊物发表或者录用；还有一点很重要，要强调文章的可读性（即使自己觉得没什么也要写的稍微玄乎点，老外看法和中国专家不太一样）；最后就是要说明联系作者的联系方式，并感谢。 下面是自己投稿的实例（也是在找到其他前辈的资料后改进的） Dear Editor and Reviewer,

This is a manuscript entitled “Your manuscript’s title” by Yan Wei, *** ***,*** ****,??. It is submitted to be considered for publication as an “Article” in your journal.

All authors have read and approved this version of the article, and due care has been taken to ensure the integrity of the work. Neither the entire paper nor any part of its content has been published or has been accepted elsewhere. It is not being submitted to any other journal.

We believe the paper may be of particular interest to the readers of your journal as （as 后写你的文章能够吸引读者的原因）it is the first time investigating the?? and put forward some new ideas. (后面可以再写1,2点新意)

Correspondence should be addressed to Yan Wei at the following address, phone and fax number, and email address.

Fuxue road 18#,Changping District,Beijing,China.102249

(Faculty of Petroleum Engineering ,China University of Petroleum,Beijing) Phone:+86 *********** Fax number:+86 010********

Email address:yanwei289@126.com(我的邮箱，大家有什么好的材料希望一并分享)

Thank you very much for your attention to our paper. Sincerely yours,

2、Research Highlights（文章亮点，一般是作为单独文档提交）

Research Highlights of “your manuscript’s title”

Dear Editors and reviewer,

This paper entitled “your manuscript’s title”,and it has three research highlights: 亮点实际上就是将摘要和结论的一些语句综合起来提炼个三四点左右。

3、Inquiry letter文章经过初审处于等待责编处理时的咨询信

Dear ** **,

I am the Corresponding Author ******,and a loyal reader of your journal .I want to know that weather my manuscript meets the requirements of your journal ? If there is some possible to be accepted, we will try our best to improve. Thank you! Sincerely, Yan Wei

4、Revised manuscript修改建议

当接到退修意见后，要仔细阅读各个审稿人的意见，同意专家修改意见的，就按照专家意见修改。不同意某个专家意见或专家意见确实不正确时，要详细解释，不要轻易说专家错误，说出你的本来意思即可。 下面是网上找到的一份修给回信： Dear editor:

Thanks a lot for having reviewed our manuscript. Now we have revised the manuscript according to the reviewers’ comments. Most of the revisions are in the manuscript. Some explanations regarding the revisions of our manuscript are as follows.

Dear Prof. XXXX,（第一位专家的意见）

Thank you very much for your letter and the comments from the referees about our paper submitted to XXXX (MS Number XXXX).We have checked the manuscript and revised it according to the comments. We submit here the revised manuscript as well as a list of changes.

Dear Prof. YYYY,（对第二位专家的意见不太赞同）

The sentence from rows 20 to 22, in page 3 is mainly express that?? If you have any question about this paper, please don’t hesitate to let me know. Sincerely yours,

5、上面是我的收集、总结的一点雕虫小技，希望虫友们继续完善

1. we agree with the referee that , but…… 2. the referee is right to point out , yet….

3. in accordance with the referees′ wishes, we have now changed this sentence to . 4. although we agree with the referee that.... 5. it is true that ,but….

6. we acknowledge that our manuscript might have been , but ….. 7.

List of actions:

Comment 1: The reviewer's language related objections concern (1) missing articles (a, the), (2) singular and plural (e.g. outputs, impacts), (3) present and past tense (figure/table x shows, figure/table y showed etc.), and (4) many incorrect and misleading phrases (e.g. \the graph only has presented on available period\on page 2 or \page 7).

Response: All mistakes mentioned above have been corrected in this paper already. About the English writing of the manuscript, we asked for a native English speaker to revise the paper before submitted to the magazine this time.

Comment 2: Page 2: At the beginning of section A, the search platform consulted (WoS?) and the SCI search query should be mentioned and discussed.

Response: Search platforms which were main performed in SCI, DII and CPCI database of WoS and the search query were discussed in page 2 of the revised version. Comment 3: Page 2: The phrase \page 2 is inappropriate: There are only impact factors for journals as a whole and not for single papers!

Response: Thanks a lot for the reviewer’s comment, the impact factor of SCI papers have been changed to the impact factor (IF) of SCI journals in page 2 according with the valuable comment.

Comment 4: Page 4: The listing of the SCI subject categories of the graphene related publications is unneeded because all categories appear in figure 2 below.

Response: The listing of the SCI subject categories has been romoved from page 4 and the publication number of every category was shown in bold for emphasis.

Comment 5: Page 7: The bars showing the time periods prior to 2006 are hardly visible in figure 7 and should be scaled up for better visualization.

Response: Compared with other bars before 2006 the bar showing the time period of 2006 to 2010 has been scaled down to 1/3 of the former for better visualization.

Comment 6: Page 8: Figure 8 shows an example for the (well-known) skewed citation distribution of ensembles of papers and contains only marginal additional information. Response: The figure of annual cited times distribution of SCI papers have been rearranged so that the regularity became more clearly. The obvious increase curve linear starts from 2007, see 1 to 5 times cited curve on figure 8.

Comment 7: Page 8-9: The data presented in figure 9 and table 3 would be much more meaningful in comparison with the literature of other topics or with the chemistry or physics literature as a whole.

Response: Thanks for this precious advice, from the collaboration on the 1-3 scientists research term in figure 9 as well as table 3, a model is used to explain the probability where the auhors may come from.

Comment 8: Page 9-10: The most-frequently used author keywords are hardly meaningful with regard to a real content analysis. An in-depth analysis based on subject-specific literature databases like CAS or INSPEC would be much more abundant.

Response: For the limitation on the subject-specific literature databases in Wuhan Document and Information Center, the data records are hardly obtained in these days. The most frequently used author keywords can also show the relevance between the research of graphene and other topics as well as the development history.

Comment 9: Section B: Due to the relatively low overall number of graphene related conference items, it can hardly be justified to present all analogous graphs and tables out of section A. The listing of the subject categories on page 11 and the figures 15-17 could be removed without significant loss of information.

Response: The listing of the subject categories on page 11 and figures 15-17 have been removed and the relevant explainations have been corrected.

Comment 10: Page 16: The pie chart given in figure 20 is somewhat confusing and should be presented in plan view as in figure 9.

Response: The pie chart in figure 20 has been redrawed as figure 9 do.

Comment 11: Page 17: The statement at the beginning of the conclusions \this study, the impact of global graphene research was first recalled and ...\See for example http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3320

Response: After studying and citing of the paper “Graphene - A rising star in view of scientometrics”, the statement at the beginning of the conclusions has been revised.

本文来源：https://www.bwwdw.com/article/d6qw.html