Share two SCI papers receive experience!]
Best regards,
> Electrochemistry Communications
> Dear professor ***
English writing: two articles, all by a surgeon languages, in addition to the first article during the find a teacher to change a few sentences, to be published the writing of the final English or standard. My experience it is to imitate, that right, to see how other people write, and then apply to be honest, write our own sentences a few letters over it? Speaking of imitation, it must also read a lot of literature, when your writing stuck, you have to want to get me where I have seen a similar sentence to the job. I e seen before and after the literature probably about 200.
> The English used in this paper requires major revision. I do not underestimate the challenge of writing a scientific paper in a language that is not the native tongue. However, the science is currently being complicated by the grammar of the paper . In particular, single / plural conflicts and changes of (and inappropriate use of) tenses (see especially section 2.5 where the middle third of the text switches to the present tense). Improving the paper in this way would ensure that the reader can focus upon the science
UK
very seriously the views of the reviewers: in as much detail as possible to answer the question of the reviewers, even if you have written a little wordy does not matter . Reviewers have feelings. Paper source (author):
> Please submit a letter fully detailing your response to each point raised by the referee along with your revised manuscript.
> Reviewer # 1:
> For Communication Length please observe the following formula:
> Your paper currently contains 2929 words and 4 figures. According to the formula above, this is the equivalent of 3729 words, which is too long for this journal.
> Reviewer 1: “*************” seemed to contain sufficient material for publication purpose. However, unfortunately, the authors did not address sufficiently what are the main advantages of this particular detection technique over previously reported ones. < br /> completed the first draft, put about a week regardless, and then do the other experiments, for a week after coming study found that the article was written mistakes, sentence coherence, logic, and read through the nature of the whole article very poor, so carefully read the papers of others, learning to learn, to read a little every day, look back at their own article, and then change a little, but also nearly a month, a norm, a kind of first draft I force not in dire need of trying to cast out, then put two or three days to write a cover letter, and spent a night (presumably should spend a whole night in pain on the Elsevier submission system experience it), the manuscript to invest in one of the areas of analysis magazine. Manuscript cast out about two weeks, received the letter of the editor, the editor think I can answer his question, as well as to modify his views on the possibility of publishing. May be lack of experience, one week after receipt of the letter, put Revised return to the past, deficiencies and problems mentioned in the article I just referenced a number of other documents and do their own description, it is clear such a move in the editor and that is very serious, over a month after the receipt of the Final Decision, that is rejected.
Article This article was revised: 15-JAN-2008
calm down want to spend so much mind to do something, it is impossible to give up. Moreover, had to choose this subject, that this work or have a certain meaning and significance.
Dear professor ***
R. Compton,
On the evening of December 18, 2007, the manuscript upload, 19, received a reply, thought it was refused, surprised the original article, and should be shortened.
> Editor in Chief
I regret to have to inform you that your manuscript is not suitable for publication in ***. This decision has been reached in light of the comments made by the referees. The detailed remarks are appended, below.
of course, also made a lot of other views, this time I treated very seriously, which have a reviewers comments I do not understand this in a professional paper on Posts and talk to others more than a week.
>
modify the month or upload, the third day, refresh the mail, received a letter as follows:
> Physical and Theoretical Chemistry Laboratory
Thus, in accordance with prior to trial issued on mean added some experiments, also enriched in writing. More than a month, I began a new impact.
Contributors magazine choices: from my experience, is obviously not to their own subjective idea creed, sometimes you think that a good suitable for magazine apparently is not for you, of course, this is not necessarily Your article is not suitable for certain magazines, and more credible reason is that your manuscript is not exactly suitable for a reviewer appetite.
This time, obviously, and strive to be rewarded.
> R. Compton
We are sorry not to be able to send you better news.
> Yours sincerely,
professional: bioanalytical chemistry class
For your guidance, reviewers comments are appended below.
Dear ***,
Dear professor ***,
Article accepted for publication: 30-JAN-2008
Received at Editorial Office : 23-DEC-2007
accordance with the requirements carefully to shorten the way to modify the polish over the pages, spent a week, the day before Christmas in the West, my manuscript hair out, when Western are on vacation, we can imagine, manuscript lying on the inside there is no movement, to about January 8, I think that also should be a holiday return it to how also did not give my manuscript even if is assigned a manuscript? This magazine has always been the very rapidly, usually within one month to complete the receiving process received from the manuscript.
so one morning and half a month, has been a holiday, but the heavy snow closed the road, unable to return home, simply sleep late in bed, and sisters a phone call woke me up and said let me check the mail. The article to be amended, within 10 days to complete.
> Electrochemistry Communications
> 2. Conclusion should not be a duplication of the Abstract.
> We will be pleased to accept your manuscript after revision in the light of the enclosed referee comments provided they can be attended to within 10 days.
Dear Dr ***,
> On behalf of the editor handling your manuscript, I am writing to you in reference to your manuscript entitled: ******* *****
Reviewers comments:
> Unfortunately, the reviewer has recommended against publication of this work in ***. In examining the reviewer specific comments, I note that some of the comments mirror those that I made when the manuscript was initially submitted. In particular, the reviewer indicates that the authors have still not made a convincing case for the advantages of the proposed method over earlier techniques. Given these considerations, I must regrettably recommend rejection of this manuscript.
In fact, the experience of the first article was removed, the second article of the experiments are already underway and writing, with the first experience, the second article in the writing is clearly a lot easier to consider that there not long before going to the winter vacation, so I consider to cast the manuscript or a magazine reviewer of a long cycle point in the holidays do not need to worry about the manuscript, or vote in a hurry magazine, simply the holidays before to get, finally, on balance, I chose the latter.
In view of the limited number of pages available to us each year to cover the entire field of analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, its instrumental advances and its wide range of applications, we can only publish a selection of the papers submitted to our journal.
> Total number of words 200 x (No of figures No of tables) <3000.
> With kind regards,
> We have received expert review of your manuscript. You will see that the revision of your manufactory manufactory manufactory is advised, and suggestions are offered for improving the manufactory manufactory manufactory and it impact. If you are prepared to undertake the work required, I would be pleased to consider the paper for publication in Talanta
do for graduate students, it is undeniable SCI papers we heart the purpose of the status of a three-year master , or again three years, Dr, we have been open to whom the struggle, pain, and be happy. Some, such as submit, under review, reject, minor revision or major revision of the wording of time affects us that fragile and do not self-confident heart. When the manuscript is cast, surely you, like me, the day to refresh messages, the greatest fear is to see “I regret to have to inform you that …….” message.
Received at Editorial Office: 18-SEP-2007
> Additional Comments:
Article revised: 29-JAN-2008
I am writing to you on behalf of Editor *** *
> Electrochemistry Communications,
> Yours sincerely,
> Electrochemistry Communications
Consequently, it is doubled upload painful experience, but less than two days, unfortunately, came, actually, my manuscript is not suitable for the magazine, put it plainly, just do not want it.
Journal title: Electrochemistry Communications, (3.48)
little summary: Editor:
> Electrochemistry Communications
turn on the computer, a festive message to show in front of me . Jul 19, 2011
I am pleased to confirm that your paper “******” has been accepted for publication in Talanta.
The discussions throughout the manufactory manufactory manufactory is superficial, thus thorough and comprehensive discussions are required in the section of “Results and Discussion”.
We have shorten our manuscript entitled “*********” to communication length and resubmitted it to Electrochemistry Communications on 23 December 2007, but have not, as yet, receive the assigned manuscript number. We fear that the manuscript may have been lost and should be grateful if you would let us know whether or not you have received it. If not, we will send our manuscript again. Thank you in advance for your help.
> Dear professor ***,
recall bit small, and the recent success, I think I need to also have an obligation to friends to share.
> 2. The words “? about 100 fold lower than that?” (page 6, line2) should be changed to “? about 100 fold higher than that?”.
> 1. A previous important work by Miao and Bard (Anal. Chem. 2004, 76, 5379-5386) on magnetic beads-based ECL for DNA detection should be cited.
> Oxford
> OX1 3QZ
> This paper is too long for Electrochemistry Communications which aims to publish short, urgent communications (see Guide for Authors). Please either submit it elsewhere as a full paper or shorten it to Communication Length and resubmit.
> Editor in Chief
> Overall, this is a paper that deserves to be published, but requires revision. (this one is enough, when the mood is super, can not describe)
like this opinion, is very pertinent. thank the reviewers, and thank the editors, thank the CCTV!
Dear professor R. Compton,
first:
*************
magazine: Talanta (2.8)
So, I wrote a letter to the Editor:
Next, I selected a magazine, I think they should be very easy, because I see a similar article in that magazine, and I think not as good as my good. But two magazines belonging to different publishing group, the citation format is completely different, and pain spent a night] format change over, this kind of work, and do needlework, with his eyes open looking at, you can not rush an acute and extremely depressed.
this time, what emotions are, and sometimes want is not your own work is not enough on the level? Is not really write poor articles, has not yet received the SCI papers, so this time of self-confidence is really poor, eventually gave way to dry the article in the side.
General comments:
because there is no intention to write the article merits, so be banning federal funding, and feel very sad, and a profound lesson.
Reviewers comments:
Speaking of this article, but pain for a whole year I experiment a lot, very hard, the data is relatively numerous, since this is my first article, writing is also a touch stone to cross the river, sentence by sentence imitation. To write this article, I carefully read about 100 literature in the field, others write good sentences, similar sentences are marked and remembered in the process of writing to express what is immediately at any time to read, In this way every day to write a short, and sometimes even a day to write a few clauses, about a month later, I found one that contains the abstract, intrduction, experiment, results and discussion the first draft actually completed.
The next day, replied, and immediately assigned manuscript number, really work, and holiday return, physically and mentally exhausted it. An editor is not easy.
Article accepted for publication: 18-JAN-2008
next talk about the second
Shuoboliandu the third year, specifically in early 2008, my two SCI papers has been received, I would like to recall two papers for and received.
reviewers agree with my work, and small changes, which take 10 days, an hour can be completed. Quickly completed the changes, the next day received a Notification of acceptance. Heart, it is quite happy.
Overall, the English language proved to be insufficient for publication purpose and needs to be revised. Specific care should be taken with regards to prepositions since it can alter the meaning of a statement
> The authors of this manuscript reported a new application of electrochemiluminescence (ECL) method in assaying telomerase activity. In this work, the magnetic beads-based TRAP-ECL assay was found to be a rapid and very sensitive (ca 100 fold increase in sensitivity) method to detect telomerase activity in tumor cells, as compared with the conventional TRAP method. This is an important work for the developed novel TRAP-ECL assay may become a first line assay for clinical diagnosis and prognosis of cancer. Additionally, the paper was organized and presented well, and literatures were cited adequately. I recommend publication after minor revisions.
> South Parks Road
We regret to inform you that **** is unable to accept your manuscript *******, Manuscript No ABC-00938-2007 for publication in *****
Reviewers comments:
Tags: manuscript mean
Posted in