东南大学研究生一年级学术英语教科书答案chapter10
建筑学排名-一分钟演讲稿
Unit 10
1.1 Pre-reading tasks
What
should you consider about the journal you are
going to submit the paper to?
Factors to be
considered: Impact factor(IF), manuscript
processing time, journal mission and
columns,
citation, etc.
What should you do to your
paper before submission?
Studying the
publication format of the target journal, and
revising the paper format according
to the
What should be included in your submission
e-Mail?
A cover letter, enclosure of the
paper, etc.
How can we sound polite when we
write the submission cover letter and reply to the
decision letter?
Use polite expression
1.3.1
title 2. author, ation, ch focus,
st declaration, pondence
1.3.2
Main idea:
major revision
The author should
1. make
point- to- point revision according to the
reviewers' comment.
2. Check spelling and
format in the main body and the references
3.
Highlight the change in
4. Upload and resubmit
the paper
2.2
1. We are really sorry for
the inappropriate language use. We have asked an
English expert
consultant to proof read the
paper.
2. We are very sorry for our incorrect
reference to published literature, and checked
instructions for authors for the required
journal format.
3. We have made correction
according to the reviewer’s comments on the use of
+- to
express variation, and changed it to
mean (SD).
3.2 Response to revision
letter
Dear Dr Prof. James Joyce,
On
behalf of my co-authors, we thank you very much
for giving us an opportunity to revise
our
manuscript, we appreciate editor and reviewers
very much for their positive and
constructive
comments and suggestions on our manuscript
entitled “
Hydroxyapatite
Tetracalcium
Phosphate Polyacrylic Acid Cement: Chemical-
Physical Properties and Cytotoxicity
”.
(ID:
IEJ-12-00123
).
We have
studied reviewer’s comments carefully and have
made revision which marked in red
in the
paper. We have tried our best to revise our
manuscript according to the comments.
Attached
please find the revised version, which we would
like to submit for your kind
consideration.
We would like to express our great
appreciation to you and reviewers for comments on
our
paper. Looking forward to hearing from
you.
Thank you and best regards.
Yours
sincerely,
Ling Huchong
Corresponding
author:
Name: Qiao Feng
E-mail: qiaofeng@
The attached letter:
Dear D
r Prof.
James Joyce,
Thank you for your letter and
for the reviewers’ comments concerning our
manuscript
entitled “Paper Title” (ID: 文章稿号).
Those comments are all valuable and very helpful
for
revising and improving our paper, as well
as the important guiding significance to our
researches. We have studied comments carefully
and have made correction which we hope
meet
with approval. Revised portion are marked in red
in the paper. The main corrections in
the
paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments
are as flowing:
Responds to the reviewer’s
comments:
Reviewer #1: The comments can be
summarized as follows:
1. It would be helpful
if the title would reflect that this report is on
a root end filling
material.
2. The entire
manuscript needs to be edited for proper use of
the English language and
syntax.
3. This
reviewer does not understand the connection
between Earl and Ibbetson’s study and
the
reference made to Bodrumlu. Please clarify.
4. Check instructions for authors for
the required journal format for referring to the
published literature. And the figures have no
numbers.
Detailed Responses:
1. It would
be helpful if the title would reflect that this
report is on a root end filling material.
Response: We have changed the title
“Hydroxyapatite Tetracalcium Phosphate
Polyacrylic
Acid Cement: Chemical-Physical
Properties and Cytotoxicity” to “A Novel Root-End
Filling
Material Based on Hydroxyapatite
Tetracalcium Phosphate Polyacrylic Acid Cement”.
2. The entire manuscript needs to be edited
for proper use of the English language and syntax.
Response: According to the reviewer’s
suggestion, we have made all corrections and all
of the
relevant changes have been marked in
red in our revised manuscript. We have changed the
description “To overcome these disadvantages,
a new material, hydroxyapatite tetracalcium
phosphatepolyacrylic acid cement (HATTCPPAA),
with optimum properties…” to “In this
study,
we intend to develop a novel material,
hydroxyapatite tetracalcium phosphate
polyacrylic acid cement (HATTCPPAA), with
optimum or improved properties…” in third
paragraph, p. 2. We have changed the
description “The HATTCPPAA paste was
mixed….and the mixed with distilled water…” to
“The HATTCPPAA paste was formed by
mixing its
powder with distilled water…” in second paragraph,
p. 3. We have changed the
description “The
paste of HATTCPPAA, GIC and GPC were placed into a
plastic plate…”
to “The paste of HATTCPPAA,
GIC and GPC were placed into a plastic plate (10
mm
diameter × 1 mm)” in second paragraph, p.
4. We have changed the description
“Compressive strength was calculated from the
mean value of five samples of each group.” to
“Compressive strength was calculated from the
mean value of five samples of each group.” in
third paragraph, p. 4. We have changed the
description “The HATTCPPAA, GIC and GPC
pastes
were manually shaped separately into an 8 mm
diameter ball within 1 min….” to “At
standard
liquidpowder ratios each material (0.5 g powder)
was mixed and immediately, but
within 1 min,
manipulated into a ball…” in fifth paragraph, p. 4
. We have changed the
description “The
materials were set in the molds for 24 h at 37°C
in 100% humidity.” to “Test
materials were
mixed according to their liquidpowder ratios and
immediately placed into a
circular mold (5 mm
diameter × 2 mm). All the specimens were allowed
to set for 24 h at
37℃ in 100% humidity.” in
second paragraph, p. 5.
3.
This reviewer
does not understand the connection between Earl
and Ibbetson’s
study and the reference made to
Bodrumlu.
Responses: We are very sorry for
not being able to clarify the connection between
Earl and
Ibbetson’s study and the reference
made to Bodrumlu in previous manuscript. Actually,
we
cited the Earl and Ibbetson’s study from
the reference made to Bodrumlu, but the original
reference from Earl and Ibbetson was reported
in British Dental Journal in 1986.
4. The
authors should check instructions for authors for
the required journal format for
referring to
the published literature. And the figures have no
numbers.
Responses: According to the
reviewer’s requirement, we have made all relevant
changes
according to instructions for authors.
Reviewer #2: The comments can be summarized as
follows:
1. p. 5, ll. 22: It is unclear how
the washout test was quantified. Please describe
more
thoroughly.
2. p. 5, ll. 11: How do
the authors know that the Et2O treatment didn't
affect the biological
properites of the the
materials? It seems it would have been better.
3. p. 5, MTT assay. The 5 mgmL concentration
exposed to L929 for 4 h can be cytotoxic
by
itself. How did the authors control for this
potential problem?
4. First paragraph, p. 8
(setting). This paragraph seems speculative and
askance of the
experimental data for the most
part. Please rewrite to relate more specifically
to the XRD
and IR data.
Detailed
Responses:
1.p. 5, ll. 22: It is unclear how
the washout test was quantified. Please describe
more
thoroughly.
Response: We have
changed the description “The HATTCPPAA, GIC and
GPC pastes
were manually shaped separately
into an 8 mm diameter ball within 1 min, and then
they
were…” to “ At standard liquidpowder
ratios each material (0.5 g powder) was mixed and
immediately, but within 1 min, manipulated
into a ball. And then they were…” in p. 5, ll. 22.
作者对论文评审员的评审意见均作了点对点的回应。由于原文篇幅过长，因此此处省略
2-4条
意见的回复。
3.3 Dear Prof. ×××:
Sorry for
disturbing you. I am not sure if it is the right
time to contact you to inquire about the
status of my submitted manuscript titled
“Paper Title”. (ID: 文章稿号), although the status of
“With Editor” has been lasting for more than
two months, since submitted to journal three
months ago. I am just wondering that my
manuscript has been sent to reviewers or not?
I would be greatly appreciated if you could
spend some of your time check the status for us. I
am very pleased to hear from you on the
reviewer’s comments.
Thank you very much for
your consideration.
Best regards!
Yours
sincerely,
××××××
Corresponding author:
Name: ×××
E-mail: ××××@××××