cover letter 和response letter的写法

http://emuch.net/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=988184&fpage=1

投稿感受和体会 by dingdang15 from emuch

投稿感受和体会 by dingdang15 from emuch
几个月前认识了小木虫网站，从此就喜欢上了这里．每天有空都上这里，看一下虫友发表论文的经验，体会，怎么投稿，怎么回复审稿人的意见等，还有热心虫友提供的英文投稿，回复审稿人模板等等，收获很多。我的第一篇SCI能顺利接收，小木虫网站，还有许多热心的虫友，给了我最无私和真诚的帮助．谢谢大家，希望大家能够多中SCI论文，多发高水平的论文。各个新手，包括我在内，如果有任何问题，可以贴出来，相信许多热心的虫友，肯定会帮助你，帮你解答，提供建议。你一定会收获很多。

　　这是我的第一篇SCI，影响因子1.0左右。要谈下经验可能说不上．我谈下自己投稿的个人体会，希望能给大家一些帮助。
　　我是做完实验后，花了将近２个多月的时间才写出来的。老板不懂英文，只有我自己一个人来写，修改．我英文水平也不赖，万事开头难，确实第一篇比较痛苦，每一句英文都自己推敲，看是否顺畅。因此，自己下载打印了十几篇相关的文献，粗略看了，其中有一半以上都是自己师兄师姐和外校同行（国内）的发表的相关英文文章．里面的许多英文句式，都可以修改后借鉴使用。这样时间可以缩短．确定投哪个期刊后，就按期刊的格式开始写．有时候碰到英文不懂的怎么地道翻译，可以上中国期刊网(CNKI)翻译助手里去找，翻译，它会给出人家的表达，选一个自己觉得合适的（这个翻译工具不错，可能大家都在用）．这样写出来的英文文章至少老外可以看的懂，不会一投稿，就说”The paper is not well written and  hard to understand(translation proble?) “或者”The major problem with this paper is concerned with English(grammar and sentence structures)”等等。至少编辑看了后，觉得你英文表达是可以的，可以送审．这是成功的第一步．
　　自己写完后，打印出来，读懂，觉得没多少问题．5月下旬就投了出去。编辑部说收到了．under review,接着就是等待．这期刊速度还是很快的．一个月后，6月23号就返回了审稿意见，要大修。2个审稿人，一个觉得我稿件数据要处理，加上误差分析等，才同意审稿．另一个审稿人，很认真仔细，给我英文表达的许多错误，修改的很仔细．那一行，那一页，该删除哪个词，该添加哪个词，时态表达等等，全部用红笔了下。象一个家庭教师一样，非常认真。而这都是免费的啊，所以我要非常感谢他。国外的审稿人，真是太仔细，认真，太好了。同时他也提了一大堆的问题，有10多个。仔细看了下，有两三个还不知道怎么回答，一个问题说我的一个解释机理是纯粹的想象或者幻想，要删掉；一个问题说我的解释有问题，从另一个角度也可以解释，问我做过这方面的测试没有？而我对这个角度的解释又不懂，，等等。总之要大修，编辑要求最好一个月内送回修稿件．
　　正如虫友所说＂但凡主编给你修改机会的话，即便是Major Revision，其实他的意图已经很明显了——他觉得你的论文还是有可取之处的，也是倾向于录用的。换言之，他如果觉得你论文不行的话，早就把你拒了。所以，珍惜修改机会。只要给你修改机会，一定好好把握．＂＂象野狗一样把这块肉牢牢地咬住不放！！＂（哈哈，非常经典形象！！）
　　个人第一感觉不好解释回答，先搁着。接着就是暑假了，一直在考虑怎么回答这些问题，我要好好修改一下。在这里我还是要感谢小木虫和热心的虫友，他们给了我热心的帮助．比如第一个审稿人的意见，我用origin作曲线的误差棒就不懂，是发了帖后虫友告诉我的，非常感谢他们。接着就在小木虫搜索有关怎么回复审稿人问题的帖子，好多，非常有用．比如，＂核心是如何修改你的paper，解答审稿人的疑问，并在回复信笺中告诉审稿人你如何根据他的意见修改了，而不是仅仅在回复信笺中解释给审稿人听。因为你的读者是看不到你的解释的，只有你修改了你的paper,才能让你的读者不会再有疑问＂，＂个人需要做到以下几点：
1、客客气气。在Cover Lett中，首先对审稿人、对主编表示感谢；
2、实实在在。根据审稿意见，逐条、逐点进行回复，即使是微小的修改，也要进行说明，句末说明你的修改体现在论文的第几页、第几行；多用这样一些语句：according to reviewer’s instructions……as suggested by the reviewer……这样至少让人觉得你很尊重审稿人的意见。＂
　　我就是这么做的。对第一个审稿人，按照要求，进行了误差分析，给曲线加了误差棒；对第二个审稿人，首先对他非常感谢，特别是语法方面给作者的指正。接着就是点对点的答复．第一个疑难的问题，＂解释是纯粹的幻想，要删除＂，确实不好回答．是听从审稿人的意见，删除，或者是辩驳啊，自己不知道．跟导师说了下，导师给了我很多帮助，这个机理是怎样的。怎么解释等等。后来，我还是保留这个解释了．重新对机理解释，写的更详细些，并且重新添加了一些图形，这样好解释说明。第二个疑难的问题，可能要我从另一个角度解释，补做实验等，但不好回答啊，也不懂这方面的实验。我先是对他的建议表示感谢，接着说我重新查找了几篇文献，他们都是这个角度来解释的．我引用了这些文献，重新修改了我的解释．这段时间刚好是奥运会，看了比赛再说。大修后，删除了很多东西，增加了不少解释表达．拖了一个礼拜，到了9月1日才把修改稿投出．接着就是新一轮的under review!!
  　可能是自己第一篇SCI，要等着它毕业啊．所以，不着急自己也着急，睡觉的时候有时都在想会不会录用啊，不录用怎么办啊，耽误了３个月了，非常着急。这期刊一个月就会给消息的。因此这个礼拜国庆也不出去玩，天天上油箱看邮件，上期刊网站看状态，一天上几次．前天还是Under review.昨天晚上打开油箱，标题就是ACCEPT–journal of *******，太高兴了。大修后直接接受．．
　　写了这么多，可能比较罗嗦，还是谢谢各位虫友的帮助．如果能对你们有用有所体会，那我非常欣慰了。祝福各位虫友多发论文！！

后记：不少虫子向我要response　letter和cover letter的写法，谢谢各位虫子的关注．其实这些模板在小木虫网站上有很多的，感谢小木虫．我把我总结的觉得有用的抄下来，供各位虫子参考。希望对你们有用，谢谢。

cover letter的写法

Dear Editor，

We are truly grateful to yours and other reviewers’ critical comments and thoughtful suggestions on our manuscript(********). Based on these comments and suggestions, we have made careful modifications on the original manuscript. All changes made to the text are in red color. We hope the new manuscript will meet your magazine’s standard. Below you will find our point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ comments/ questions.

We hope that these revisions are satisfactory and that the revised version will be acceptable for publication in *********.

Thank you very much for your work concerning our paper.

Wish you all the best!

                                                  Sincerely yours,

RESPONSES TO REVIEWERS’ COMMENTS
Dear Dr:

We are truly grateful to yours and other reviewers’ critical comments and thoughtful suggestions. Based on these comments and suggestions, we have made careful modifications on the original manuscript. All changes made to the text are in red color. In addition, we have consulted native English speakers for paper revision before the submission this time. We hope the new manuscript will meet your magazine’s standard. Below you will find our point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ comments/ questions: 

Comments from the Editor-in-Chief: 

回复后1月，要求小休，并认为英文水平已经大大提高，要求明确我下一步想如何研究，因此老外由帮我写了回复信，如下是第二封信的开场白：

Dear Dr. Chernick:

We must thank you and all other reviewers for the critical feedback. We feel lucky that our manuscript went to these reviewers as the valuable comments from them not only helped us with the improvement of our manuscript, but suggested some neat ideas for future studies. Please do forward our heartfelt thanks to these experts. 
Based on the comments we received, careful modifications have been made to the R1 manuscript. All changes were marked in red text. In addition, we also have a native English speakers double-checked the English for the revised R2 version. We hope the new manuscript will meet your magazine’s standard. Below you will find our point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ comments/ questions:

Dear Editor:

Thank you very much for your supervision of the reviewing process of my manuscript (Ref. No. of XXXXXXX). We also highly appreciate the reviewer’s carefulness, conscientious, and the broad knowledge on the relevant research fields, since they have given me a number of beneficial suggestions. According to the reviewer’s instructions, we have made the following revisions on this manuscript:

1. After examining the reviewer’s comments carefully, we must admit that we have
not expressed our meaning correctly in the previous manuscript. Sorry for this confusion. In the revised version, the “rougher” has been corrected as “weaker and
broader”. (See Line 7 from top, 3.1 Phase identification).

2. As suggested by the reviewer, Fig. 3a has been referred into the revised manuscript
to reveal flattening of the milled powders. (See Line 4 from top, 3.2 Microstructure)

3. In the review comments, the reviewer has pointed out that “The particle size of the
powders in Fig. 3b&c appear to be comparable?” We have again examined Fig. 3b
and 3c carefully. Compared with the particle size of powders in Fig. 3b, the particle
size of particles in Fig. 3c showed a very slight increase. (See Line 17 from top, 3.2
Microstructure)

4. As suggested by the reviewer, we have outlined the operating mechanism in the revised manuscript for the sake of better understanding and clarity. (See Lines 7-11 from top, 4.Conclusions)

5. In the review comment, we are very appreciated to know that a marked hardcopy of
the manuscript has been sent by post concerning additional corrections of English
language. We have waited the hardcopy for more than 2 months since May 9, 2008.
However, we have not yet received the hardcopy till now, due to some unknown
reasons. With the permission of XXXXXXX (Email: XXXXXXX), we have invited another native English speaker inour university, who is a visiting professor from USA engaged in the research field ofMaterials Science and Engineering, to go through the whole manuscript. The Englishlanguage in the current manuscript has been polished and improved.

We hope that these revisions are satisfactory and that the revised version will be
acceptable for publication in XXXXXXX.

Thank you very much for your work concerning my paper.

Wish you all the best!

Sincerely yours,
XXXXXXX