# Cover Letter实用指南

COVER LETTER（投稿信）实用指南(经验经历分享)(转载零点花园)

Dear Editor,
I'm not sure if it is the right time to contact you again to inquire about the status of my submitted
manuscript(ref:****) although nearly one month have passed since I contacted you last time. I
would be greatly appreciate if
you could spend some of your time check the status for me.
Best regards
***

Dear ***,
Thank you for your e-mail. We would like to sincerely apologise for the long delay in reviewing
your article. Your article was sent to many different referees, most of whom felt that they were
either unqualified or their time was too restricted to review the paper. We understand that you
must feel frustrated, and we are sorry for this. Please understand that we rely entirely on the
referee’s to return articles to us speedily. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. It would be
much appreciated if you could suggest an alternative referee for your article, a person who may be
able to review the article in a more appropriate time frame. Please forward this person's contact
details (e-mail address) to us as soon as possible. We will do our very best to speed up the process.
We apologize for any inconvenience that you experienced due to this delay, and we appreciate
your understanding and tried patience in this regard.

Dear Ms. Rose:
I'm Whyerect from China，who plans to participate the 11th International Symposium on Data
Mining 2002 in Sydney. The poster number of my paper is 007.
I found the 'OFFICIAL ACCEPTANCE LETTER' you sent to me was lack of your signature. I'm
afraid this would cause some trouble when I go to the embassy for my visa. Could you please send
me a fax or electronic version of OFFICIAL ACCEPTANCE LETTER with your autograph?
Thank you!
Regards
Whyerect

Dear Whyerect:
Thank you for your message. I am sorry that the corrected invitation has not reached you. I have
requested a new mailing to be sent to you today.
Best Regards,
Rose

Dear Ms. Rose:
could you please fax a copy of my acceptance letter fist so that I could have enough time for my
visa application? The visa application will take me about 2-3 weeks according to the embassy.
Thanks a lot!
Regards
Whyerect

Dear Whyerect:
The invitation letter for your presentation at SPIE's International Symposium Data Mining (22-27
October 2002) has been mailed. An Adobe acrobat pdf file of the letter is attached to this message
Best regards,
Rose

Dear Sean
Thanks for sending the CD-ROM copy, but I have not received the book (the prodeedings), I want
to know whether a book should be included .
As you know, the printed copy would be more believable and useful as a reference,If I want one
how much it cost? thank you
Best wishes
Jinke

Hello Dr.
A printed version is 125 plus whatever shipping and currency conversion costs. They can be
ordered and paid for through the same route as previously.
Cheers
Dr. Sean D. Dessureault
2005 APCOM Chairman

Dear ****,
I am oe work for ooCo., Ltd.
I have recevied the fax about analysis payment. Could you give me detail
information about your bank account. So that I can pay as soon as possible.
Best Wishes,
*****

Dear *****,
attached you find the invoice for the analysis of pesticide residues
including bank account information.
In case of any questions please don't hesitate to contact me.
Best regards
****

Dear editor,
I've gone through this article and found a wrong word. The 143th line the
word "m" shoud be "the". I noted it in the query form.
Please give me a back e-mail. Thank you very much.
Best wishes.
Yours,
***

Dear Dr. ***,
I hereby acknowledge the safe receipt of the corrections.
Yours sincerely,
****

Dear ****,
I've read carefully the 'Transfer of copyright agreement' and signed it. Now
I e-mailed it to you.In addition,we will not order the offprints at the present time.
Please send me a back e-mail if you receive this messenge. Thank you very
much!
Yours sincerely,
***

Dear ***,
I hereby acknowledge the safe receipt of the signed copyright form.
Yours sincerely,
****

Dear***,
Please find enclosed the re-review from one of the previous reviewers of your manuscript. As you
can see, he is now in favor of publishing your article if you can modify your paper to answer his
questions.
If you feel that you can answer his questions appropriately, then please provide a revised
manuscript based on the recommendations of the reviewers together with a disk or CD of the
revision using a standard word processing program. You must also send along with the revision a
cover letter that details your responses to each point in the reviewers' comments.
Thank you once again for your interest in Ultrasonics Sonochemistry. I am sorry for the delay in
Doinit L. Sr.

Title of Paper: ***
Authors: ***
Ref. No. USAM2005.6
RECOMMENDATION: PUBLISH WITH REVISION
I appreciate the progress and effort that the authors have made. I note some significant progress in
this revised article. By replacing "new" with the word of "simple", I take back my argument about
the novelty of the method in making soft metal nanoparticles, because it is the first article that
report to pulverizing Sn metal into the size as small as 50 nm. Maybe the word "facile" is more
appropriate.
I am still having trouble understanding the mechanism of the formation of Sn nanoparticle
proposed by the author. Because the hardness of Sn is 1.5 in mineralogical scale, where Mg and
Zn have 2.5 (Samsonov, G.V. "Handbook of the Physicochemical Properties of the Elements"
IFI/Plenum, 1968, pp. 432), it is not surprising that Sn can be pulverizing into small particles
under high-intensity of ultrasound. What I have trouble with is that the surface area should not be
large enough to have the authors worried about in reducing the surface energy of particles with
aggregation (I calculated the surface area of Sn particles at 50 nm is c.a. 12 m2/g). I really don't
think the oxide coating and solvent molecules would depress the aggregation because I don't think
there would be aggregation occurring.
Overall, it is my opinion that the article should be published if the authors can clarify the question
Please note that the references are not uniform in format from No 15 down.

I am submitting here a manuscript entitled “**************”. The manuscript consists of 10
pages of text, 2 pages of 4 figures, 1 page of 2 tables, 1 page of captions of figures.
I would be grateful if the manuscript could be reviewed and considered for publication in your
"****** ".
Yours sincerely,
Prof. ********

Dear Dr. ******
Research Paper ID # No.007, entitled "**********", with Prof. Smith as corresponding author,
has been submitted to the International Journal of ABC.I invite you to review this manuscript for
one of our Editors, Dr. John. The abstract appears at the end of this email, along with the names of
the authors. We normally expect reviews of Research Letters to be completed in two to three
weeks, and reviews of other manuscript types to be completed in five to six weeks.
Please let me know as soon as possible if you will be able to accept my invitation to review. If
you are unable to review at this time, I would appreciate your recommending another expert
referee.
our online manuscript submission and review system.
Once you accept my invitation to review this manuscript, you will receive an email of
confirmation, and then the manuscript will be available for you to examine in your 'Referee
Centre' in our IJABC - Manuscript Central website. The email will tell you how to access this and
at hello@ddmm.ac.de I realise that our expert referees greatly contribute to the high standards of
our journal, and I thank you for your present and/or future participation.
Yours sincerely
****

Dear Dr. *****
I am afraid that I can not make it because I am not familar with this topic. I would be very happy
to review papers that are close to my research interests, e.g. Support Vector Machine.
Yours sincerely
******

Dear Dr. ******
Thank you for replying to my invitation to review manuscript ID # No.007 for the International
Journal of ABC. It is unfortunate that you are unable to review this manuscript at this time.
I will keep you in mind when future manuscripts come in that fall under your area of expertise.
Yours sincerely
*********

Dear Dr. ***,
Jack has still wishes (see below). Please would you provide a copy of an authorized license and
send it directly to Mr. John at "**" <***@hrm.com>.
Thank you very much in advance.
Best regards,
****

Professor ****,
I have explained what you said to my colleagues and they agreed that additional validation is not
necessary. However, would you like to contact ** to provide a authorized license? Maybe it is
necessary when *** register in the other countries.
For the testing report, writing the client as "***Co.,Ltd" instead of " ***Co., Ltd. Research and
Development Center of Plant Medicine" would be appreciated.
Best regards.
***

Dear **,
Please let me know whether the report about the pesticide analysis is OK now or not.
Otherwise L*T cannot send the original of the report to H**.
Best regards,
G*r S*z

（主审），建议发表，但是提出了一些问题，主要是提出：有些问题原

Reviewer #1: Major Revision
This paper reports on the development of a stripping voltammetry procedure for the determination
of thallium and cadmium in water using a modified glassy carbon electrode with a
Langmuir-Blodgett film of p-allylcalix[4]arene coating.
The study is well planned and performed. Additionally, the topic that it covers is interesting;
consequently, I feel that the paper merits publication in ACA, but with some revision. Following
are some aspects for the authors to consider:
1 The characterization of Langmuir monolayers is made as usual through the measurement of the
surface pressure versus area isotherms. Some characteristics of isotherms should be offered, i.e.,
the limiting area per molecule (it seems to be around 0.8 nm2/molecule from Figure 2) and the
2.3 section (p. 5) related to the solutions used and their concentrations.
2 All reagents used for experimental work and the suppliers should be indicated in Section 2.2
(p.2), not only for the Tl2SO4 reagent.
3 The lifetime of the proposed electrode must be discussed with experimental data.
4 The central idea of this study is the development of a new non-mercury electrode for the
stripping analysis of metals. This means, additionally, the correct study of potential interferent
species to compare with conventional electrodes. The study of interferents must be improved by
including more ions such as Pb(II), Bi(III), Ni(II) or Cu(II) and giving results in a new table.
5 The precision of the proposed procedure must be studied.
6 The applicability of procedure to drinking water is doubtful taking into account the detection
limit found (>1 mg.L-1) and the natural level of analytes in waters. In fact, the application that the
authors offer is to spiked clean water (lake water and tap water). Did the authors consider
potential application to polluted water?
7 As the authors propose the simultaneous determination of Tl and Cd and since Figure 4
suggests some overlapping of stripping g*L-1 level, it seems necessary ?voltamograms for both
metals at a 150 to study the resolution of both signals in the lab, indicating the concentration
range for both metals in which resolution is possible.
8 The heading of Table 1 indicates recovery and precision for the tap and lake water analyzed,
but the table does not include data for precision.
9 The whole manuscript should be revised for some typewriting errors and the English should be
improved.
10 In brief, I think that the idea is interesting but the authors need to improve some aspects of
their work as indicated above n order to demonstrate its real feasibility.
Reviewer #2: Minor Revision
This is an interesting paper focusing on the use of LB films of calix[4]arenes for the determination
Its publication can be recommended, after considering the following points:
1) Why are they assuming that the calix[4]arenes are interacting with the glassy carbon electrode
through the phenolic groups, rather than through the hydrophobic aromatic allyl groups? This
possibility would not be preferred using the LB technique?
2) The binding of the metal ions would not be more favorable at the lower rim OH groups?
3) Spectroscopic, and microscopy (SPM, TEM) investigation of the LB-Tl, Cd surfaces would be
very informative in this case.
4) Considering that only one layer has been deposited, and the evidence provided by the authors
that it remains permeable to large ions, such as ferrocyanide, how one can be sure that the metal
deposition is not occurring at the surface holes? Otherwise, how a non conducting layer would
mediate electron transfer in the reduction/stripping process?
5) A very interesting result would be the comparison between the behavior of the LB films of the
t-butyl and allyl calix[4]arenes.
Language revision will be necessary.

Following are our response about reviewers’ comment to our manuscript No ***-***-00**0:
LB film.
‘The limiting area and collapsing pressure of p-allylcalix[4]arene is 0.75 nm2 per molecule and
34mNm respectively on pure water ‘ was provided in section 3.1.
‘Measurement of π-A isotherms and preparation of LB monolayer were performed with JML-04
LB trough (Shanghai Zhongchen Company, P R China). The spreading solutions were prepared by
dissolving about 1-2 mg of the compound in 10 ml of dichloromethane. All spreading solutions
were kept at 5 °C and renewed every 2 weeks.’ was provided in section 2.3.
2 CdCl2 and other chemicals were purchased from local company as analytical reagents and used
without further purification. Therefore, this sentence will be appeared in the text.
3 The response of AllylCA-GCE did not change remarkably after two months. The lifetime of
proposed electrode should be longer. We add the first sentence in our revision.
4 In order to make clear, one table about interferences will be appeared in our revision.
5 The precision of proposed procedure were given in the table 2.
6 We consider that this electrode can detect metal ion of polluted water. Unfortunately，suitable
7 We want to ensure they won’t interfere with each other. It seems to the peak of thallium and
cadmium could not be separated entirely for partly overlapping in Fig 4 A.
8 We calculate relative standard deviation of method and provided it in table 2.
9 we correct some typewriting errors which were appeared in our manuscript.
10 The molecular orientation can be controlled easily using LB technique. The type Z LB film
means hydrophilic group interact with glassy carbon electrode.
11 We have done experiment on electrode modified with calixarene(pasted on the surface of GC
electrode), that is, molecular orientation was arranged freely. The response decrease sharply. We
suppose it can due to decreasing of amount of allyl group on the same area. Therefore, we
supposed that would not happened
12 The spectroscopic or microscopy investigation is unnecessary base on the above reason.
13 Metal can be deposited on the surface hole. However, the response of bare electrode is much
less than that of AllylCA-GCE. We suppose this can be neglected.
14 The ferrocyanide is the larger ion, and it can not permeate the calixarene cavity and exchange
electron with electrode. However, the supporting electrolyte can permeate the cavity freely.
15 The electrode modified with LB film of p-tert-butylcalix[4]arene cannot recognize thallium and
16 We apologized for our poor English. We will try to improve it in revision.
17 In order to highlight the change what we have done, the color of text changed will become red.

Dear Dr××,
Thank you for choosing ××××to publish your work. Your manuscript will be forwarded to the
printers next week. Also all manuscripts printed in Vol. 10, No. 4, 2005 will be available on our
web site: www.××.org.pl soon.
We inform you that page charges:10 printed pages x $20 per page =$200 (two hundred US dollars)
plus postage should be transferred to our account. You will receive 50 free reprints. If you would
like to order extra 50 reprints you may do so at an extra charge of $100.00 (one hundred US dollars) plus postage. We will send you an invoice. Please let us know how many reprints do you order and to whom the invoice should be send. If you want to pay by credit card, please, let us know, I will send you a form to fill in. Best regards, ××× 我的回信： Dear Editor: We are glad to see that our paper will be published in ××××. Thanks a million for your work. Although we have been supported by an external grant source, we must admit that it is not enough money to pay page charges We hope to waive page charges expect for payments for language corrections and color figures. Best wishes, Authors: 编辑回信： Dear Dr ××, After discussion of your special case all three Editors agreed to cover partially your page charges. We inform you that page charges will be: 10 printed pages x$5 per page = $50 (fifty US dollars) plus postage ($40), total \$90 (ninety US dollars).Please let us know the address of the institution
which will pay the bill and to whom the invoice and reprints should be sent.
Best regards,

Dear*,
Reviewers have now commented on your paper. You will see that they are advising that you revise
your manuscript. If you are prepared to undertake the work required, I would be pleased to
reconsider my decision.
requested by the Editor you should add the names of ALL the authors in the list of references
(unless they are really too many, for instance over 12-15.
If you decide to revise the work, please submit a list of changes or a rebuttal against each point
which is being raised when you submit the revised manuscript.
Yours sincerely,
Managing Editor

Reviewer #1: Ms. Ref. No.: GENE-D-05-00014
1) I do not understand why the authors refer to Komaguchi et al (who cloned the chicken Lmbr1
gene) as our lab, since any of the authors are common.
2) To complete Fig. 1 please mark the position of Primer 13 (R)
3) Page 17 line 14, should be gAA > gAB >gBB
4) Page 25 line 18, should be 1254C1255G

Dear Managing Editor:
We have revised the manuscript according to reviewers' and your comments. In this revision, all
the authors have been listed in the references. In our point-by-point response attached below,
reviewer comment is in larger fonts (12 pt) and our response is in smaller fonts (10 pt). In addition,
Title and Coauthors have several changes. We look forward to hearing from you. Thank you.
Reviewer #1: MS. Ref. No.: GENE-D-05-00014
1) I do not understand why the authors refer to Komaguchi et al (who cloned the chicken Lmbr1
gene) as our lab, since any of the authors are common. Revised.
2) To complete Fig. 1 please mark the position of Primer 13 (R) Revised.
3) Page 17 line 14, should be gAA > gAB >gBB Revised.
4) Page 25 line 18, should be 1254C1255G Revised.
*******
melody 提供的催稿信模板
Dear Dr. ***:
I'm not sure if it is the right time to contact you to inquire about the status of my submitted
manuscript titled "****" (Ms. Ref. No.: ****) although the status of "with editor" for my
manuscript have been lasting for more than ***** weeks. I am just wondering that my manuscript
has been send to reviewers or not?
Best regards
***

Dear Editor：
This was my article for your magazine“Preparation and Structure Characterization of Long Single
Crystalline CuO Nanoribbons” In this communication, we have developed a novel simple and
convenient route to the abundant synthesis of long CuO nanoribbons on conducting Aluminium
substrate. TEM and XRD studies indicated that these CuO nanoribbons were single crystal with
single crystalline plane of monoclinic {111}. The nanoribbons obtained are about several hundreds
nanometers in width, from tens to one hundred nanometers in thickness and their length can be up
to one hundred microns. Because these CuO nanoribbons not only are perfect single crystalline
but also are single crystalline plane, they can be expected to have special properties and purpose,
such as nanoelectronic device and heterogeneous catalyst etc. In addition, the novel method seems
can also be used to prepare 1D nanostructures of other metallic oxides.
yours sincerely
**************

Dear editors:
I am a Dr of **** University in China. Now I will submit my manuscript entitled “Fabrication of
Copolymer(core)-Palladium(shell) Composite Microspheres and Their Successful Application to
the Solvent-Free Heck Reactions” to Chemical Engineering Science, and none of the work has
been published or under consideration for publication elsewhere. This manuscript presents an
in-suit synthetic method for the preparation of Poly (St-co-MAA)(core)-Pd(shell) composite
microspheres with dense Pd shells coated on their surface. The wall thickness could be controlled
in the range of 30-50nm by this coating process. The composite spheres showed very good
catalytic activities in Heck coupling reactions and can be reused many times without loss of its
catalytic activities in the absence of organic solvent This method will attract great interest in the
preparation of other copolymer(core)-metal(shell) nanomaterials. So, I think this manuscript is
suitable for it. I would be very happy if I can get your reply as soon as possible.
Authors: *****, *****@yahoo.com.cn
Tel: +86-***-2852533 Fax: +86-***-2852533
Current address: The Key Laboratory for Special Functional Materials, ******
Corresponding author: ******
The software used: Microsoft word 2000 (text file), Photoshop 6.0
Yours Sincerely
********
Oct,20, 2004

Editorial Office
Journal of Physical Chemistry
Gentlemen:
I submit the letter, “xxxxx题目”, by 作者. It contains our findings on the attachment of gold
nanoparticles to functionalzied multiwalled carbon nanotubes. My coauthors and I believe that this
new information, on a subject relevant to nanophase physical chemistry, merits consideration for
publication in The Journal of Physical Chemistry B. It has not been submitted elsewhere
My coauthors and I offer the following people as possible reviewers:
Prof. xxx
Chemistry Department
University of xxx
xxxxx
E-mail: xxa@ xx.xx.edu
Prof. xx xx
School of Engineering and Electronic
The Scottish Microelectronics Centre
University of Edinburgh
King's Buildings
Edinburgh, EH9 3JF
UK
Email: xx.xx@ed.ac.uk
Prof. xx xxx
Unité de Chimie des Matériaux Inorganiques et Organiques
Université Catholique de Louvain
Place Louis Pasteur 1/3
B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium,
E-mail: xxxx@chim.ucl.ac.be
We look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours,

Dear Dr. ****
We would like to submit our paper entitled “*****” to *****. The present work has not been
published elsewhere and is not being submitted to any other journal. We will appreciate very much
if the present paper can be reviewed critically and any comment, suggestion and advice from the
reviewers will be welcome.
Correspondence and phone calls about the paper should be directed to **** at the following
Enclosure:
1. An original and three copies of the manuscript;

Dear Editor：
Enclosed are three copies of a manuscript by *** titled“***”．It is submitted to be considered for
publication as a“Original Article" in your journal．This paper is 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
because it provides valuable data and a new method to predict ***.
Correspondence and phone calls about the paper should be directed to *** at the following
***，Doctoral candidate of structure engineering,
Dept. of Structural Engineering,
*** University,
***, P. R. China.
Tel：***;
Fax：***;
E-mail：：***
Thanks very much for your attention to our paper．
Sincerely yours，

Ms. Ref. No.: ***-D-06-***
Title: ***
Engineering Structures
Dear ***,
Your submission entitled ***" will be handled by Editor *** .
You may check on the progress of your paper by logging on to the
Elsevier Editorial System as an author. The URL is
http://ees.elsevier.com.
Thank you for submitting your work to this journal.
Kind regards,

Dear Darren Spencer
From Editor I knew the review have completed and uploaded their revised advice the online
system around November 2. But I did not get it. So please get the revised advice from the editor. I
expect you can send these information to my mailbox.
Thank you very much.
×××

Dear ×××,
Please be advised that I have requested that the handling editor of the paper to forward you on the
reviewer comments so that you will be able to submit your revised submission.
If you require any further assistance then please feel free to contact me.
Yours sincerely,
*********

Dear Editor William Pennington,
We want to submit our manuscript with the title “**************” to your esteemed journal. The
paper contains 18 pages, 2 tables, 5 figures and Supplementary material and here enclosed are
three hard copies.
In this paper, we studied the synthesis, structure and characters of **************. To the best
of our knowledge, such ************** with ************** has been reported uncommonly
previously. Therefore, we consider that this work is new, and fit for publication in
**************. We promise that the paper is not submitted to any other journals. We really
appreciate you if you can have it reviewed by the referees. Thanks a lot.
E-mail: **************.
Tel: **************; Fax: **************.
With best regards
Yours sincerely,
**************

Dear Editors:
As there is no budget for publication charge in our research,I cannot afford to pay the page,so
that I would like to request for the waiver.

Beginning
In this paper, we focus on the need for
This paper proceeds as follow.
The structure of the paper is as follows.
In this paper, we shall first briefly introduce fuzzy sets and related concepts
To begin with we will provide a brief background on the
Introduction
This will be followed by a description of the fuzzy nature of the problem and a detailed
presentation of how the required membership functions are defined.
Details on xx and xx are discussed in later sections.
In the next section, after a statement of the basic problem, various situations involving possibility
knowledge are investigated: first, an entirely possibility model is proposed; then the cases of a
fuzzy service time with stochastic arrivals and non fuzzy service rule is studied; lastly, fuzzy
service rule are considered.
Review
This review is followed by an introduction.
A brief summary of some of the relevant concepts in xxx and xxx is presented in Section 2.
In the next section a brief view of the .... is given.
In the next section, a short review of ... is given with special regard to ...
Section 2 reviews relevant research related to xx.
Section 1.1 briefly surveys the motivation for a methodology of action, while 1.2 looks at the
difficulties posed by the complexity of systems and outlines the need for development of
possibility methods.
Body
Section 1 defines the notion of robustness, and argues for its importance.
Section 1 devoted to the basic aspects of the FLC decision making logic.
Section 2 gives the background of the problem which includes xxx
Section 2 discusses some problems with and approaches to, natural language understanding.
Section 2 explains how flexibility which often ... can be expressed in terms of fuzzy time window
Section 3 discusses the aspects of fuzzy set theory that are used in the ...
Section 3 describes the system itself in a general way, including the ..and also discusses how to
evaluate system performance.
Section 3 describes a new measure of xx.
Section 3 demonstrates the use of fuzzy possibility theory in the analysis of xx.
Section 3 is a fine description of fuzzy formulation of human decision.
Section 3, is developed to the modeling and processing of fuzzy decision rules
The main idea of the FLC is described in Section 3 while Section 4 describes the xx strategies.
Section 3 and 4 show experimental studies for verifying the proposed model.
Section 4 discusses a previous fuzzy set based approach to cost variance investigation.
Section 4 gives a specific example of xxx.
Section 4 is the experimental study to make a fuzzy model of memory process.
Section 4 contains a discussion of the implication of the results of Section 2 and 3.
Section 4 applies this fuzzy measure to the analysis of xx and illustrate its use on experimental
data.
Section 5 presents the primary results of the paper: a fuzzy set model ..
Section 5 contains some conclusions plus some ideas for further work.
Section 6 illustrate the model with an example.
Various ways of fuzzification and the reasons for their choice are discussed very briefly in Section
2.
In Section 2 are presented the block diagram expression of a whole model
of human DM system
In Section 2 we shall list a collection of basic assumptions which a ... scheme must satisfy.
In Section 2 of this paper, we present representation and uniqueness theorems for the fundamental
measurement of fuzziness when the domain of discourse is order dense.
In Section 3, we describe the preliminary results of an empirical study
currently in progress to verify the measurement model and to construct membership functions.
In Section 5 is analyzed the inference process through the two kinds of inference experiments...
This Section
In this section, the characteristics and environment under which MRP is
designed are described.
We will provide in this section basic terminologies and notations which
are necessary for the understanding of subsequent results.
Next Section
The next section describes the mathematics that goes into the computer implementation of such
fuzzy logic statements.
However, it is cumbersome for this purpose and in practical applications the formulae were
rearranged and simplified as discussed in the next section.
The three components will be described in the next two section, and an example of xx analysis of
a computer information system will then illustrate their use.
We can interpret the results of Experiments I and II as in the following sections.
The next section summarizes the method in a from that is useful for arguments based on xx
Summary
This paper concludes with a discussion of future research consideration in section 5.
Section 5 summarizes the results of this investigation.
Section 5 gives the conclusions and future directions of research.
Section 7 provides a summary and a discussion of some extensions of the paper.
Finally, conclusions and future work are summarized
The basic questions posed above are then discussed and conclusions are drawn.
Section 7 is the conclusion of the paper.
Chapter 0. Abstract
A basic problem in the design of xx is presented by the choice of a xx rate for the measurement of
experimental variables.
This paper examines a new measure of xx in xx based on fuzzy mathematics which overcomes the
difficulties found in other xx measures.
This paper describes a system for the analysis of the xx.
The method involves the construction of xx from fuzzy relations.
The procedure is useful in analyzing how groups reach a decision.
The technique used is to employ a newly developed and versatile xx algorithms.
The usefulness of xx is also considered.
A brief methodology used in xx is discussed.
The analysis is useful in xx and xx problem.
A model is developed for a xx analysis using fuzzy matrices.
Algorithms to combine these estimates and produce a xx are presented and justified.
The use of the method is discussed and an example is given.
Results of an experimental applications of this xx analysis procedure are given to illustrate the
proposed technique.
This paper analyses problems in
This paper outlines the functions carried out by ...
This paper includes an illustration of the ...
This paper provides an overview and information useful for approaching
Emphasis is placed on the construction of a criterion function by which the xx in achieving a
hierarchical system of objectives are evaluated.
The main emphasis is placed on the problem of xx
Our proposed model is verified through experimental study.
The experimental results reveal interesting examples of fuzzy phases of : xx,xx
The compatibility of a project in terms of cost, and xx are likewise represented by linguistic
variables.
A didactic example is included to illustrate the computational procedure
Chapter 1. Introduction
Time
Over the course of the past 30 years, .. has emerged form intuitive
Technological revolutions have recently hit the industrial world
The advent of ... systems for has had a significant impact on the
The development of ... is explored
During the past decade, the theory of fuzzy sets has developed in a variety of directions,
The concept of xx was investigated quite intensively in recent years
There has been a turning point in ... methodology in accordance with the advent of ...
A major concern in ... today is to continue to improve...
A xx is a latecomer in the part representation arena.
At the time of this writing, there is still no standard way of xx
Although a lot of effort is being spent on improving these weaknesses, the efficient and effective
method has yet to be developed.
The pioneer work can be traced to xx [1965].
To date, none of the methods developed is perfect and all are far from ready to be used in
commercial systems.
Objective / Goal / Purpose
The purpose of the inference engine can be outlined as follows:
The ultimate goal of the xx system is to allow the non experts to utilize the existing knowledge in
the area of manual handling of loads, and to provide intelligent, computer aided instruction for
xxx.
The paper concerns the development of a xx
The scope of this research lies in
The main theme of the paper is the application of rule based decision making.
These objectives are to be met with such thoroughness and confidence as to permit ...
The objectives of the ... operations study are as follows:
The primary purpose/consideration/objective of
The ultimate goal of this concept is to provide
The main objective of such a ... system is to
The aim of this paper is to provide methods to construct such probability distribution.
In order to achieve these objectives, an xx must meet the following requirements:
In order to take advantage of their similarity
more research is still required before final goal of ... can be completed
In this trial, the objective is to generate...
for the sake of concentrating on ... research issues
A major goal of this report is to extend the utilization of a recently developed procedure for the xx.
For an illustrative purpose, four well known OR problems are studied in presence of fuzzy data:
xx.
A major thrust of the paper is to discuss approaches and strategies for structuring ..methods
This illustration points out the need to specify
The ultimate goal is both descriptive and prescriptive.
Chapter 2. Literature Review
A wealth of information is to be found in the statistics literature, for example, regarding xx
A considerable amount of research has been done .. during the last decade
A great number of studies report on the treatment of uncertainties associated with xx.
There is considerable amount of literature on planning
However, these studies do not provide much attention to undertainty in xx.
Since then, the subject has been extensively explored and it is still under investigation as well in
methodological aspects as in concrete applications.
Many research studies have been carried out on this topic.
Problem of xx draw recently more and more attention of system analysis.
Attempts to resolve this dilemma have resulted in the development of
Many complex processes unfortunately, do not yield to this design procedure and have, therefore,
not yet been automated.
Most of the methods developed so far are deterministic and /or probabilistic in nature.
The central issue in all these studies is to
The problem of xx has been studied by other investigators, however, these studies have been based
upon classical statistical approaches.
Applied ... techniques to
Characterized the ... system as
Developed an algorithm to
Developed a system called ... which
Uses an iterative algorithm to deduce
Emphasized the need to
Identifies six key issues surrounding high technology
A comprehensive study of the .. has been undertaken
Much work has been reported recently in these filed
Proposed
Presented
State that
Point out that the problem of
Described
Illustrated
Indicated
Has shown / showed
Highlights
A study on ...was done / developed by []
Previous work, such as [] and [], deal only with
The approach taken by [] is
The system developed by [] consists
[]'s model requires consideration of ..
[]' model draws attention to evolution in human development
[]'s model focuses on...
Little research has been conducted in applying ... to
The published information that is relevant to this research...
This study further shows that
Their work is based on the principle of
More history of ... can be found in xx et al. [1979].
Studies have been completed to established
The ...studies indicated that
Though application of xx in the filed of xx has proliferated in recent years, effort in analyzing xx,
especially xx, is lacking.
Problem / Issue / Question
Unfortunately, real-world engineering problems such as manufacturing planning do not fit well
with this narrowly defined model. They tend to span broad activities and require consideration of
multiple aspects.
Remedy / solve / alleviate these problems
... is a difficult problem, yet to be adequately resolved
Two major problems have yet to be addressed
This problem in essence involves using x to obtain a solution.
An additional research issue to be tackled is ....
Some important issues in developing a ... system are discussed
The three prime issues can be summarized:
The situation leads to the problem of how to determine the ...
There have been many attempts to
It is expected to be serious barrier to
It offers a simple solution in a limited domain for a complex problem.
There are several ways to get around this problem.
As difficult as it seems to be, xx is by no means new.
The problem is to recognize xx from a design representation.
A xx problem can trace its roots to xx.
xx [1987] used a heuristic approach to simplify the complexity of the problem

Dear Dr ×××,
I would like you to kindly email me an electronic version of your manuscript entitled:
“××××××××”
which was submitted for publication in ×××××
(please, note the new reference number)
Please, note that your manuscript was not formatted properly.You will find instructions for proper
formatting appended hereafter.
With my kindest regards,
********
Editor-in-Chief ××××

Dear Editor,
Four months ago I submitted my manuscript entitled:
“×××××××××”
which was submitted for publication in ×××××××. But my manuscript was not formatted properly.
Now, I have revised my manuscript and send an electronic file to you. I can most easily be
contacted at the following:
E-mail sddress: ××××××××××××
Yours sincerely,
×××

Dear Dr ×××,
I thank you for sending the file, you should be hearing from me again in a couple of weeks
concerning its review.
With my kind regards,
***********
15 天后编辑的最后回信：
Dear Dr. ×××,
I wish to inform you that your manuscript entitled:
“×××××××××”
which was submitted for publication in ×××××××, has been carefully reviewed by two
independent referees.
Both referees have expressed the opinion that, unfortunately, the research presented in your
manuscript does not fall within the scope of the journal ×××××××××
While I presently cannot accept this manuscript for publication, I thank you for submitting your
work to ××××××. I will be pleased to receive other manuscripts from you in the future.
With my kindest regards,
*********

Dear ****:
In Nov 4 afternoon, your speaking was excellent, I'm very interested in your lecture. Can you
E-mail a copy and its ppt to me?
Best wishes,.
Yours sincerely
********

Dear Mr. ******,
I sincerely apologize for the delay in my response, but I have been extremely busy following my
participation in the RFID China Forum last month. I had a number of critical activities with
corporate, ISO and EPCglobal which required significant international travel. As requested,
please note the attached file representing my presentation at the event on 4 November
2005. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or require additional information.
Best regards!
*********
________________________________________________

Dear editor,
I on behalf of my co-authors submit our manuscript entitled “********
” to your esteemed journal ******** as a communication. In this communication, we reported
******** and ******** , respectively, resulting from ********* . More importantly, the
********* represents the *********, which is highly significant to the *********. In addition,
we promise that the paper is not submitted to any other journals. Thanks a lot.
Yours sincerely，
********

Dear Professor ×××
Ref.:*********
Title : *********
Thank you for choosing to submit your article for consideration for publication in *********. I
regret to inform you however, that your article will not be considered further. Communications are
preliminary accounts of original and significant work and therefore rapid publication must be
justified. I am sorry to say that on this occasion your article will undergo no further
processing. The rejection rate for Communications submitted to ******** is ~65 %.
I am sorry we could not be of further assistance on this occasion.
Yours sincerely
*********

cover letter 可以起到很好的作用，就好比你求职的时候的自荐信，要吸

Dear Dr．
Enclosed are three copies of a manuscript by Rose N ．Dipaola，Donna A．Gallo，and Tom
N．Roberts titled“Hepatitis C Virus Infection in Long-Term Transfusion Patients”．It is submitted
to be considered for publication as a“Original Article" in your journal．This paper is～?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 because the study
it reports stated the HCV infection rate among long-term transfusion patients is higher than that of
the general population and of short-term transfusion patients．
Correspondence and phone calls about the paper should be directed to Rose N．Dipaola at the
Rose N ．Dipaola，MD
Institute of Internal Medicine
Cleveland Clinic Foundation
9500 Euclid Ave．
Cleveland，OH44195，USA
Tel：1-216-444-5360
Fax：1-216-444-9580
E-mail：dipao＠cesmtp ．ccf. Org
Thanks very much for your attention to our paper．
Sincerely yours，
Rose N．Dipaola
Westwolf 提供的投稿经验（1）

Dear Professor ***:
Thank you for your invitation. My colleagues and I will consider whether we have anything
appropriate to present and will come to a decision within the next few days.
The ACS web site is devoid of any information on the symposium you mention, and the
description in your letter is not very clear. It would appear that you are attempting to interest the
ACS in a new area, and I hope you succeed. However, it would help in my decision if you could
be a bit clearer. What is expected from me? Is it something new or a review of the previous
findings of my group?
In addition, attending this meeting was not something I planned on. This means that my limited
budget will not stand the extra strain. Therefore, it would help if I knew of any possibilities to
defray participation costs.
I look forward to hearing from you.
****

From: ********
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2008 3:14 PM
To: ddmm@abc.edu
Subject: Message for ****l
A little earlier, I received an email message from your office rejecting the manuscript I submitted
as SUSC_edwardsacher_20020322/1, editorial reference number SS 02192. Needless to say, I was
surprised at not being given the opportunity to rebut. Now that I have read the referees' comments,
I am doubly surprised.
Consider Referee A. His sole disagreement, without offering reasons to the contrary, is that the
phenomena we find are attributed to several different free radicals formed on bond breaking. He
argues that stable free radicals in graphite exist only in vacancies and at surfaces. We agree. Where
we appear to disagree is whether or not the breaking of a C-C bond creates a vacancy: his point of
view, as stated in his comment, is that such free radicals rejoin to reform bonds. Unfortunately,
literature data going back many decades prove him wrong.
I presume that Referee A is from the group that wrote reference 21 in the manuscript since they
note that one of their four attributions is given incorrectly in the manuscript. I thank him for
catching it; it will be corrected in the next version.
Now, consider Referee B. Of his list of major points, the first asks for clearer referencing, the next
four ask that residuals and error bars be included in several plots, the sixth (erroneously numbered
5) asks for a clarification in a figure and the last questions the applicability of a reference.
While Referee A may not like our free radical formation mechanism, neither he nor Referee B
(who doesn't mention it at all) has refuted it or offered evidence as to why it may not be so. It is
interesting to note that we, the authors, have, in fact done so in the middle of p. 12 of our
manuscript, where we offer several interesting opposing views.
Furthermore, our evidence for the presence of free radicals is not questioned, nor is our N
hybridization scheme ( which has never appeared in previous papers on the subject). Also not
discussed are the supporting results of the Raman and TOF-SIMS studies. Based on all this, and
more I will not spend time discussing, we find it difficult to understand how you could possibly
reject the manuscript without the opportunity to revise it.
Could you explain your decision? I look forward to hearing from you.
***

Dear Dr. ***,
I was most troubled by the incorrect listings in Table I of all four components from Reference
21. Your letter says that the error was only in one of the four, but they all look different to me and
apparently to the referee. There were also a number of other features which seemed to be easily
found errors that gave me great concern not by the importance of any single error but rather by
their frequency and the fact that they should really have been caught by the authors before
submission.
Sincerely,
********

Thank you for responding so quickly. I have read your comment and compared it with the
taken from reference 21 are in error. In fact, if you glance at reference 21, pages 325-327, you will
find their discussion of the attributions of others to the N1s peaks, and their assessments of those
attributions. They are unclear as to their own view and never state it clearly; we tried to give what
we thought it was, which is probably why Referee A made his comment. However, we call your
attention to the first sentence of the last paragraph of the discussion, which begins with the words,
"While we cannot definitely assign the N1s peaks .....". If, indeed, Referee A is a member of the
team that wrote reference 21, the ideas expressed in his comment must have originated later. I
submit that this is not a cause for rejection of the manuscript.
Further, the comments of Referee B do not concern easily found errors; rather, they concern the
addition of residuals and error bars, whose purpose is to enhance and clarify our manuscript.
Certainly, this is typical of requests made for revision.
As I noted in yesterday's letter, none of this warrants rejection. Indeed, neither of the referees
mentioned it. Therefore, I request your permission to submit a revised manuscript. Could you tell
me how to do this?
Many thanks.
***
。。。。（再后来的信件我没有保存下）

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
A-2 REVIEW
Paper gives a new assignment for the C1s and N1s XPS components of the CNx thin layer. The
authors discuss it from a view point of sp and sp2 hybridization in the compound. Although I
cannot believe their conclusion for the solid, reader will judge whether it is reasonable or not.
Thus the paper should be published in order to open the discussion. I feel, however, there are too
many figures in the paper. The Residual plots in Fig. 2a and 2b are unnecessary at least. In the
manuscript obtained by down loading the PDF file, there are many mistypes, probably occurred in
the transfer process.
In the manuscript, 1. many hyphens or minus signals, and power components are dropped from the
manuscript. 2. ri ented ? oriented ( in Abstract, page 1) 3. id ? did (page 2, line 18) 4. neighbor s ?
neighbors (page 2, line 22) 5. tho se ? those (page 5, line 8) 6. peak f ? peak of (page 12, line 21) 7.
+? ? N+? (page 12, line 25, page 13, line 1, Table II) 8. 3N4 ? C3N4 (page 14, line 20)
B-2 REVIEW:
Surface Science paper by: D.-Q. Yang, E. Sacher, ‘A spectroscopic study of CNx formation by the
keVN2+…. (SS02192)
Authors have plot residuals in Figure 2a, as it has been asked. However the residuals clearly show
peaks instead of being straight line (the line of residual has wiggles – see top of Fig. 2a).
This indicates that the peak fitting was not done correctly. To get the straight line the number of
peaks or/and their positions and widths need to be determined correctly. Introduction of a new
peak means that a new chemical component is present and when a new position of the peak is
introduced it means that a different chemical component is present (this mean that a different
interpretation of data have to be done to current one in the paper). Therefore, since all analysis and
interpretation of the data in this paper relay on this fitting procedure - I do not believe to current
interpretation of the data given in this paper.
In my opinion much better analysis of data is needed and/or the data needs to be taken with a
better resolution so that peaks in C1s core level are resolved before it is worth publishing in Surf.
Sci.

Dear Professor Campbell:
I submit the revised manuscript, “A spectroscopic study of CNx formation by the keV N2+
irradiation of highly oriented pyrolytic graphite surfaces”, as well as nine revised figures. The
revision was carried out as a result of the comments of the two reviewers. Detailed comments
follow.
Referee A
As the reviewer notes, we do, indeed, attribute all the implanted N components to free radicals. As
we noted, the free radicals are initially produced on bond cleavage by the irradiating beam., as we
have previously shown. The N can only react with these chain end fragments, retaining, at least to
some extent, the free radical character of the original fragments. Since the production of free
radicals by hemolytic scission has been known for many decades, we see no reason to defend this
point.
The reviewer’s next point has to do with the N1s XPS attributions used in the paper by Kusunoki
et al. When one reads reference 21, pages 325-327, one finds their discussion of the attributions of
others to the N1s peaks, and their assessments of those attributions. They are unclear as to their
own view and never state it clearly; we tried to give what we thought it was, which is probably
why Referee A made his comment. However, we call your attention to the first sentence of the last
paragraph of the Discussion, which begins with the words, "While we cannot definitely assign the
N1s peaks .....". If, indeed, Referee A is a member of the team that wrote reference 21, the ideas
expressed in his comment must have originated later. For this reason, we have changed our
attributions in the text, as well as in Table I, to agree with those of the reviewer, and note its
subsequent communication.
Referee B
Major point 1: The difficulty here appears to be with the phraseology. What we meant was that the
attributions from many sources contradict each other; since they cannot all be correct, many of the
attributions are obviously in error. We have reworded this to make it clearer.
Major point 2: The reviewer asks to see residuals. This is easy to do, since we always use residuals
in our peak fitting. Thus, we have replaced the figures with those showing residuals. Further, we
have added a paragraph to the Experimental section, to indicate the philosophy used in employing
the residuals. This was done to avoid any confusion with the criteria employed.
Major point 3: The reviewer is concerned with the use of a straight line to represent the data in Fig
5a, and wishes to see error bars. So as not to confuse the data, we show error bars for the first
points of each plot in the figure. Further, we point out the well-known problem encountered on
angle resolution: the circle being detected at a perpendicular take-off angle becomes an ellipse as
the angle approaches grazing incidence, causing intensity errors. We note that, until an angle of
60° degrees from the perpendicular, the data are well represented by a straight, horizontal line, and
we illustrate this for the uppermost of the plots.
Major point 4: We do not exactly understand the overall thrust of this point, since several different
ones are being made concerning Fig. 4a. We have added error bars to the first points, so as not to
confuse and overlap the data. In addition, the reviewer asks for rescaling, to more clearly see C3
and C4. While we believe that such rescaling is unnecessary, and C3 and C4 are already clearly
seen, we actually tried to do this. We tried, and decided against, logarithmic rescaling of the
ordinate because the plots were distorted and the upper plots were compressed. We tried, and
decided against, another figure for the lower plots because we already have fifteen figures.
Major point 5 (called point 4 by the reviewer): The reviewer asks for error bars. They have been
added to the first points of Figs. 4b and 6. We have added them to all the points of Fig. 4c because
of the uncertainty in establishing the precision of the abscissa.
Major point 6 (called point 5 by the reviewer): The reviewer does not see any evidence for the
shift of the highest peak intensity of the N1s spectrum in Fig. 1b. We cannot understand this
request. Fig. 1b clearly shows that, on irradiation, the highest peak shifts from the one near 400.5
eV to the one near 399 eV. This is reworded to make it clearer.
Major point 7 (called point 6): The reviewer notes that the original reference [24] concerns the
Au-N bond and not the C-N bond. He is absolutely correct. We intentionally used this reference
since it deals with the type of analysis we were doing on nitride formation, and we thought the
reader would find it helpful to be aware of this. However, we understand the reviewer’s point: it
has been replaced with another reference, on the C-N bond.
All the minor points, some caused by problems with Word, as we notified you a few days after our
initial submission, have been corrected. We thank the reviewer for noting them.
We hope that the revision is acceptable.
****

Dear Dr(or Prof.). ***
Please send me a copy of your article: "xxxxxxxx(文章题目)", published iin ****杂志名, e.g.,
J.Appl.Phys. ), Vol.xx, No.** (date in the journal), **(page number)

Dear ××××,
I write this email to ask whether my paper has been accepted. And if
is still being reviewed, when can I get the information of the final result? How long, in ordinary
condition, can you finish reviewing a paper ?
I would very much appreciate you if you could affort a little time to
answer these question. Thanks a lot!
Best regards!
sincerely yours
×××××

Dear ×××××,
Ordinarily a manuscript is reviewed within 8 weeks and returned to the author. Your manuscript,
BP-3017 was received by us on January 30. It was sent to a referee on February 2. That referee
was unable to review the manuscript and informed us in mid-April. It was then sent to a second
referee on April 22. That referee also was unable to review the paper. It
was then sent to a third referee on May 20.
Occasionally this occurs and then we must keep trying different knowledgeable referees until
someone responds. We always welcome your suggestions for referees in your field of
study. Thank you for your patience.
×××××

Dear Dr.:
Enclosed please find one original and three copies of our manuscript entitled “*****”. It is
submitted to be considered for publication as an “Original Article" in your journal．This paper is～
•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 because the study
it reports stated the HCV infection rate among long-term transfusion patients is higher than that of
the general population and of short-term transfusion patients．
Correspondence and phone calls about the paper should be directed to *** at the following
Department of XXXXXXXXX,
University of Science and Technology,
Hefei, Anhui, 230026,
P.R.China
Tel：********
Fax：********
E-mail：****＠*****
Thanks very much for your attention to our paper．
Sincerely yours，
******

Letter 投到一个期刊，但被无情的拒了，这片论文已经在另一个期刊以
Article 的形式发表，下面贴出编辑给的拒稿信，希望对各位虫友能有

Dear xxxxx
TITLE: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
AUTHORS: xxx et al
Your letter submitted to xxxxxx has now been refereed and the referee reports are attached.
To be publishable in this journal, letters must be scientifically valid, contain significant new
physics, be of high quality and scientific interest, and be recognised as an important contribution
to the literature.
The referees find that your paper does not meet these criteria and thus does not warrant
publication in xxxxxxxxx. It has therefore been withdrawn from consideration.
Yours sincerely
xxxxxxxx

Dear Mr. Jeremy STRIBLING
On behalf of the Organizing Committee, we would like to inform you that, up to the present, we
have not received any reviews yet for you paper entitled: "Rooter: ************". So, your paper
has been accepted, as a non-reviewed paper, for presentation at the 9th World Multiconference on
Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics (WMSCI 2005) to be held in Orlando, USA, on July
10-13, 2005. We will inform you about the conference program, including your presentation, once
the timetable is finalized.
If you submitted your paper several times, and our staff did not detect the repetition of the same
submitted paper, then your paper might have been sent several times for its review, and it has
several IDs. In this situation you may have received (or may receive) a regular acceptation. In
such a case, please discard this present acceptance e-mail and be sure to always use the paper ID
number we gave you in the e-mail where we accepted you paper as an appraised one. Otherwise,
your paper will be included in the Proceedings as a non-reviewed paper.
Each accepted papers (reviewed and non-reviewed) is candidate for being best paper of its
respective session and, consequently, it is candidate for a second reviewing process to be made by
the reviewers of the Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics (JSCI), by means of which
the best 10%-20% of the papers presented at the conference will be selected and published in the
JSCI after making possible modifications (in content/format) and extensions as to adequate them
to a journal publication.
You can download the authors ***** (PDF format) from the conference web site
(http://www.iiisci.org/sci2005). It includes the following: the Instructions for Authors, the Author
Guide for Preparing a Proceedings Paper, the Copyright Transfer Form, the Speaker ******
Biographical Sketch and Hotel information.
To submit the electronic version of your camera-ready paper, via the conference web site, you will
need to enter the paper ID number and a password. To send the electronic version of the paper
being accepted in this e-mail use the following:
Paper ID number: *******
Looking forward to see you at SCI 2005, next July.
Best Regards,
****
------------------------------------
SUBMISSION CHECKLIST
------------------------------------
Authors contributing to WMSCI 2005 should send, no later than their camera-ready deadline:
March 23rd (for papers accepted before or on February 23rd) or May 3rd (for papers accepted
after February 23rd), the following FIVE items:
Submission by postal mail:
--------------------------------
1) Two printed copies of the final camera-ready copy of your paper, according to the "Author
Guide for Preparing a Proceedings Paper", in order to include it in the hard copy (paper) version
of the Proceedings. Please write lightly, using a soft pencil, at the upper right-hand corners in the
back of all your paper **** pages: (a) your registration ID number, which was provided to you in
the page title "WMSCI 2005 - Your Registration Acknowledgement", at the end of your online
registration, and (b) the paper ID number you were informed about in the acceptation notification
e-mail and you indicated during the online registration process.
3) A Speaker's Biographical Sketch according to the format included in the Authors **** (This
biographical sketch will be given to the chairman of the author's session in order to support
him/her when presenting the author). Use a traceable express mail service. Protect your package
with cardboard and mail it to the following address:
Prof. Nagib Callaos
WMSCI 2005
PMB-115
3956 Town Center Blvd.
Orlando, Florida 32837, U.S.A
Submission via conference web site: http://www.iiisci.org/sci2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) The Conference Registration Form. Remember that registration of at least one author per
paper and the payment (or the signed commitment of on-site payment) of the conference fees are a
necessary condition for the paper to be included in the Conference Proceedings and/or in
the Conference Program. Each registration fee entitles to the publication and presentation of one
paper only; each additional paper incurs an additional fee. If two or more authors of the same
paper attend the Conference, each one of them must pay his/her respective registration fee. Extra
page fee would be paid once for each paper. For registering click on the *****Online
Registration ***** link, included in the conference web site.
5) Electronic version of the paper in one of the following file formats: Acrobat PDF or PostScript,
in order to include it in the CD-ROM version of the Proceedings. If web site submission is
impossible, send the electronic version of your paper, as an attachment to an e-mail, to one of the
following addresses: sci2005@iiis.orgsci2005@telcel.net.vesci2005@cantv.net . We are
providing you with three addresses to give you alternatives in the case you get a delivery failure
message.
For more detailed information, download the authors ***** (PDF format) from the conference
web site (http://www.iiisci.org/sci2005)
To access the authors ***** , select the option
*****Guidelines ***** from the Main Menu.
FAILURE TO SUBMIT ALL FIVE ITEMS SHOWN ABOVE BY THE DEADLINE WILL
RESULT IN THE NON INCLUSION OF YOUR PAPER IN THE PROCEEDINGS AND,
CONSEQUENTLY, IT WILL NOT BE SCHEDULED FOR ITS PRESENTATION IN THE
CONFERENCE.
----------------------------------------
AUDIOVISUAL EQUIPMENT
----------------------------------------
Audiovisual equipment provided for the meetings will be an overhead projector and a screen.
There would be an LCD projector, for those authors or session chairs who might request it. In any
case, there will be no more than one LCD projector per session room.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Centre Hotel has a business center that can provide basic photocopying and other
services. If your needs go beyond, there is a FedEx Kinko's in the Orange County Convention
Center that is located at a walking distance from the Rosen Centre Hotel. They have computer
workstations with Internet access and printing facilities. They offer a full line of copying services
and a limited assortment of business supplies. This FedEx Kinko ***** can be reached at (007)
000-0000 or at 00000@kinkos.com
NOTE: Please, do not reply to this e-mail address. It is a system e-mail account. So, this mailbox
is not monitored. For further information or assistance e-mail to one of these addresses:
sci2005@iiis.orgsci2005@telcel.net.vesci2005@cantv.net

Dear Editor,
I'm not sure if it is the right time to contact you to inquire about the status of my submitted
manuscript.
Paper Title：Prediction and Numerical Analysis -------
Authors：---, ---and ----
Paper ID：ABC-05-***
I would be greatly appreciate if you could spend some of your time check the status for me.
Best regards

Dear. ***,
Your paper is still under review. I have sent a reminder to the Associate Editor to keep on top of
things. I will also be sending a reminder to the reviewers personally. Please let me know if there is
anything else I can do.
Thanks,
****
Assistant to the Editor
Journal of ****
**** University

September 26, 2005
Dr. *****, Consulting Editor
Journal of ****
P.O. Box 1234
**********
U.S.A.
Dear Dr. ******** :
You recently returned a review of our manuscript, JR88-2008. After having read it, my coauthors
and I are of the opinion that it does not remotely reach the standards we have come to expect from
JAP. We believe that this is due to the fact that the reviewer was poorly chosen, and has a
difficulty understanding the thrust of the manuscript. We offer the following rebuttal of his review.
In his first point, the reviewer offers his personal opinion that the penetration of oxygen into the
porous silicon determines the oxidation kinetics. He appears to assume that we are proposing this;
we are not, as the references clearly show. This was proposed, and accepted, long before. We
simply confirm it with correlations, and use them to make predictions.
In his second point, the reviewer says that we cannot do what we have, in fact, done: use XPS to
quantify the oxidation. Instead, he suggests that we use HF etching of the surface. However,
besides the fact that etching is inherently less accurate than XPS, the etching of porous material is
fraught with problems: in particular, the fact that water does not wet the silicon means that air in
the pores will prevent the water from entering, thus giving incorrect results.
In his third point, the reviewer suggests that we leave out all reference to photoluminescence. With
this request, he indicates that he has not understood the thrust of the paper: it is part of a series, as
indicated in the Introduction, on the source of the photoluminescence in oxidizing porous silicon.
Why should we want to remove any reference as to why we did the experiment?
In his fourth point, the reviewer asks whether silicon oxidation is good or bad. How does one
answer that? We are studying silicon oxidation, not because it is good or bad, but because we wish
to understand the phenomenon and its bearing on photoluminescence.
In his fifth point, the reviewer indicates that atmospheric oxidation depends on the atmospheric
conditions and is, therefore, not necessarily reproducible. This is true enough, and has been
understood for many years. That is why the accepted procedure is to quote the atmospheric
conditions during the experiment in the Experimental Section, as we have done.
In summary, the review of our manuscript is below the level of JAP, and we hope that you will be
able to either accept our rebuttal as is, or obtain another review. The final manuscript we will send
will also contain the corrections of the mechanical deficiencies noted.
Sincerely yours,
****
B. 主编觉得反驳意见合适,同意找另一组评委. 下面新评委们的部分

I have been asked to perform a two-fold task: to see whether the first reviewer's comments are
appropriate and, if not then, to offer my opinion of this research.
The previous Reviewer: It is unfortunately terribly evident that the previous reviewer has not the
slightest idea what the research performed here aims to accomplish. This is most clearly seen in
his 4th comment: "The reader do not understand: is it bad or good that Si is oxidized?" This
sentence shows two things. The first is, as claimed by me, is that the authors write in their
abstract:" A model has been developed to describe the room air oxidation process..." A model is
not a judgment of good and evil, nor should it be. The second item is that the first reviewer neither
knows how to read or to write American English. The first reviewer, however eminent he/she may
otherwise be, is linguistically disqualified for adequate review. I must this review this MS. de
novo.
The article: The authors write (page 3): “ It is our purpose to understand how porosity affects the
air oxidation of nanoporous Si…”. This seems to me to be an entirely worthwhile goal; the
problem for me is whether this project has been adequately performed and reported. As things
stand at the moment, it appears to me that answer is NO, although this might be remedied.
........
C. 我们根据他的意见进行了必要的修改,并解释了他的一些疑问,下面是修改后的Letter.
Dear Dr. ****:
I submit a revised version of Ms. #JR88-2008. The revisions were carried out according to the
suggestions of the last reviewer.
We feel it necessary to thank this reviewer for his most perceptive review. His comments clearly
bore on the subject of the manuscript, as opposed to those of the previous reviewer; we also thank
you for your willingness to send the manuscript to this second reviewer.
clear that the manuscript was one of a series on the investigation of the cause of
photoluminescence in nanoporous silicon, and we had not given enough information on our
previous results.
With the recent publication of our IR work in the Journal of Applied Physics, we were now in a
position to reference these results. It is now clear that both oxygen and water vapor oxidize the
porous silicon, with similar rates due to their reaction with silicon free radicals. Reference can
thus be made to the oxidation mechanism, as well as to our previous work justifying the use of the
Deal-Grove mechanism.
Without considering the reviewer’s points individually, we believe that we have responded to each
one. We have, for example, included an SEM photomicrograph of a porous sample, although this
was difficult due to the fact that these insulators charge. AFM photomicrographs were impossible
to obtain due to the high surface roughness of our samples.
We have made the mechanical corrections to the figures, as requested. Concerning the previous
Figure 2b, we have removed the text concerning oxidation time prediction, and have clarified our
need for the figure.
We hope that these changes lead to the acceptance of the manuscript, and look forward to hearing
from you.
Please accept my best wishes for the new year.
Sincerely yours,
****

一篇因为找不到合适的评审人而退回的编辑来信（比较少见吧）
Ms. No.: CPLETT-05-2261
Title: *****
Corresponding Author: Dr. ***
Authors: ****
Dear Dr. ***,
Thank you for your submission to Chemical Physics Letters. Unfortunately, despite our best
efforts, we have not been able to find a referee willing to review the paper. I must therefore
conclude that the paper is not appropriate for Chemical Physics Letters. Accordingly, the
manuscript is being returned without review.
Although we are not able to publish this particular manuscript, we appreciate the opportunity to
consider it, and we hope that you will continue to consider Chemical Physics Letters as a primary
source for publishing your future research.
Sincerely,
********
Editor
Chemical Physics Letters
********, Editorial Office
E-mail: ddmm@elsevier.com

Hello!
I'm a researcher in China. My main interest is RFID security, but in China very few people are
researching RFID security. I'v subscribed me E-mail address to your workshop, but I have not
So, can you friendly email me some document, such as
1.＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊
2.＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊
And so on.
I'll Waiting for your help sincerely!
Best wishes for you!
Yours ＊＊＊＊

The goal of the mailing list is to inform subscribers when the website
is updated, but I do not send papers. If they are not available online,
that is probably due to copyrights.
＊＊＊＊

Ms. Ref. No.: MOLCAA-D-06-00105
Title: **
Journal of Molecular Catalysis A: Chemical
Dear Dr windange
You are invited to review the above-mentioned manuscript that has been submitted for publication
in Journal of Molecular Catalysis A: Chemical. The abstract is attached below.
Are you available to provide the review?
INVITATION.
this invitation, as appropriate.
If you accept this invitation, I would be very grateful if you would return your review by ******
You may submit your comments online at the above URL. There you will find spaces for
confidential comments to the editor, comments for the author and a report form to be completed.
With kind regards,
E.G. Derouane, PhD
Editor
Journal of Molecular Catalysis A: Chemical

Comment to Author:
1. The introduction (part 1) explains quite well why the researchers are interesting to alkene
isomerization which is very important to industry and organic synthesis.
2. In the second part (Results and discussion) author picked out the most effective catalyst
RuHCl(PPh3)3 which was synthesized in different method ,and a detailed description is given for
the catalytic results of different condition .It is attractive that the performance on 1-octadecene
isomerization by RuHCl(PPh3)3(s) presented high activity, thermal stability and the solvent-free
system . In the third part (Conclusion) a lengthy discussion follows to explain.
3. The work is of interest, but I feel that the paper could be better revised as follows:
(a)Describe the Mechanism of RuHCl (PPh3)3(s) catalyzed olefin isomerization in full detail
(section 2.5).in Figure 3, the mechanism should be expressed what it meant correctly.
(b) Figures 1 and 2 are necessary to be displayed clearly, and page number should be needed.
(c)Section 2.3 starts off well. This entire section seems very important. This section should form
the bulk of the discussion I would appreciate further studies have been carried out with
1-octadecene isomerization catalyzed by the complex RuHCl(PPh3)3(s) without solvent and
completed.
Final comment: This paper would be much better in quality when the mechanism of the
isomerization and 1-octadecene isomerization in the above work are detailed in this publication.

E-mail，整理出来以飨各位同仁，也希望多提宝贵意见。

Dear editor:
I want to submit our manuscript with the title ““********“ for publication in "“**********". It
is not being submitted to any other journal.
Thanks very much for your attention to our paper.
With my best wishes!
Sincerely yours:
******

Dear Prof.*****:
I want to know if you have received our manuscript with the title “******“ for submission in
"“**********".We submit our manuscript from e-mail:********* on Friday, 27 Feb, but we can
With my best wishes!
Sincerely yours:
*****

Dear ***,
Best regards,
***
Editorial office ****

Dear ***,
Thank you for your email from 27-Feb-2006. We acknowledge the receipt of your submission to
the *****. Your files with the reserved ccdc no. ***** are already pre-revised. In the moment,
they cannot be formated as a manuscript. Why see at the end of this email!
We aim at informing you about the referee's comments in less than 4 weeks.
!!! IMPORTANT NOTE !!!
At the end of the process, for each accepted ***** publication the authors are asked to pay *****.
(NEW PAPER CHARGE since 2006!!!) The authors will receive an INVOICE to be cancelled in
30 days. The payment includes 30 offprints.Do you agree with that?
Please, if possible use always the registration no. as subject in the correspondence to us! Thank
you
Best regards,
***
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There are some errors in the CIF
i) In the preparation, only potassium salts were used as input, but a sodium salt was obtained?!
ii) There are no H atoms in the CIF, but it is written incorrectly:
"all the hydrogen atoms of the ligands were placed in geometrically calculated positions, and
included in the final refinement in the riding model approximation" Please, add a correct statement
about the H atom treatment to Experimental details!
iii) The number of water molecules per unit cell should be larger. If you have determined the water
contents by chemical or DTA/DTG measurement, add the corresponding results to the Exp. details!
If not, please note: The displacement parameters of some O atoms are too small for water
molecules which are only hydrogen bonded to water molecules and additionally disordered. O
atoms which have an occupancy factor of 0.5 and a complete
tetrahedral environment with O...O distances of about 3 Angstrom should have sof = 1. Disordered
O atoms can have sofs. smaller than 1, 0.5 for
an atom with one neighbored O atoms plus d(O...O) < 2.5 and 0.25 for an atom with 3 other
neighbored O atoms and d(O...O) < 2.5. Please check!
Please send a new CIF! Thank you
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dear *****,
Please, send the figures in original ps or hgl format!
Thank you
Best regards,
*****

Dear Editor,
Thanks for your reply for time and patient. We have send the figures in hgl format many times. We
want to know do you have received it? And we look forward to getting a message from you on
Thanks a lot.
Kind regards
*****

Dear*****,
Thank you for the submission of the figures. The manuscript is prepared and sent to the
referee. Be prepared, that there are open questions
with your paper (chemical composition not determined!). Sorry for being late. I was absent for
four days.
Best regards,
*****

Dear *****,
Please, would you check following statements: The chemical compound, you have studied, is the
same as investigated by *****! The lattice parameters are nearly the same. *****made a
chemical analysis! And you? **** have found ** sodium cations from which only three have
appropriate Uani values. You have found exactly these three Na ions. You have assigned the
remaining charges to hydrogenium ions, because you could not find the other cations. But can the
latter Na ions not be disordered? Yes, they can do that! One example is your O21/O24. These two
positions seem
to represent one disordered Na ion. Why? They have, under considering of suitable Ueq values,
too short distance to each other, and then, too much electrons for one O atom. Additinally, they
have distances of 2.1... 2.5 ?to next O atoms, which is typical for Na-O bond lengths and not
typical for O...O distances of hydrogen bonds.
Since your measurement seems to be more accurate than that of *****, a publication of you data
as refinement of the Na~6~-compound is probably sensefull. Please, check it!
If you need any help to find the other Na atoms, you can send us the hkl file!
Best regards,
*****

Dear *****,
Thanks for your reply for time and patient. The quality of our crystal data is obviously better than
ref.******. We make a contrast and show similarity and difference between the title compound
and that from the ref.******. We have amended it according to your suggestion, and then we send
lot.
Kind regards
*****

Dear *****,
Would you please check the attached files! The resulting polyhedra make sense after resolution of
the disordered positions into two preferred sites. The current water contents per formula is **
molecules.
Best regards,
*****

Dear editor Lucy:
received the attachments named as"the prof of the article"and "Author Query Form".Thank you
very much for your hard work and timely reply.But before I finish my revision,I have some
1,Because my partner is in Beijing now,so I want to wait for him to finish the revision,this work
will be finished by the next weekend at the latest.I wonder if I can do it like this.
2,I want to add a second author and make ×××the third author ,××× has agreed to this change,but I
am not sure if the change is allowed by the Journal.
3,I hope I can add a Foundation name,because during this work ,I has been helped by right of this
Foundation,but I forgot to wrote it.I also wonder if I can do it.
4,In the Author Query Form,I know the authors' photos and biographies are required by this
journal.I want to know if we need all authors' photos and biographies,and how can I give your our
photos.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Sincerely Yours,×××

Dear ×××：
1) Firstly, there is no problem waiting to send in your corrections until you and your partner have
both finished your revisions. You will probably receive reminder e-mails as these are automated
and I can't stop them, but just ignore these and send in the corrections when you have both
finished.
2) I will contact the editor to request the addition of an author, it should not be a problem.
3) Yes add the Founadtion name - include this with the corrections.
4) Biographies & photos are ideally required, but I would never force an author to include if they
would prefer not too. In terms of the photos if you would like to submit then the ideal way is a
jpeg or tif file if you have access to a digital camera, or even a phone camera. Or if you have
printed photos would you have access to a scanner? If it is difficult to get photos it is acceptable to
leave them out - perhaps just have a short biography for each author. Whatever you decide please
return the material with the corrections attached to the e-mail.
I hope this helps - don't hesitate to contact me if you have any other queries or concerns.
Kindest regards，******

Dear Editor:
I am sorry to disturb you again for my paper. My article"×××"has been accepted by the ×××in Feb
16, 2006.The Manuscript Number is ×××.The editor told me that I should revise my paper .At that
time,I had two questions: First,how long can we revise the article? Second,when we finish the
revision,how could I give the paper to you? But I have not receive the reply yet. Because my
partner and I are revising the paper,I am afraid of being late.So I have to write a letter to
you.Another question is,does the "correction" mean "revised article" in English? Thank you very
Sincerely Yours,
Mr. ×××

Dear ××：
According to our system your paper was accepted on the 16th February and it is now listed in our
publication tracking system under the reference ××. You should have received correspondence
from Elsevier with regard to this.
decision should then be registered by the editor via the online system. You will then be able to
submit your revised paper once again via the system as a 'Submit Revision' link would be made
available to you.
The word 'Correction' refers to a change that has to be made. The Editor may want you to correct
an error within the paper or to make a change.
If you have any queries please feel free to contact me.
Yours sincerely
×××

Dear Editor:
mail from Mr××× with two attachments:TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT FORM and OFFPRINTS
ORDER FORM.Thank you very much!
But I am not sure if the Editor-in-Chief of ×××asked me to revise the paper.On the one hand,An
E-mail from the Editor-in-Chief gave the Comments from the Editors and Reviewers in follows:
This is a very good paper, related work has to be better explained. Also need to discuss the
relationship to standards. For example, what are the standards currently existing and what
standards do we need., Also the authors could make the paper more concise. If these comments are
addressed then the paper can be published in the journal.
In my opinion,according to the Comments from the Editors and Reviewers,I should revise my
paper.On the other hand,in the on-line system,my paper is on "Submissions with a Decision",so I
can't submit my paper once again via the system .
So in my previous mail to you,I asked the second question.I want to know if I need to revise my
paper.If I needn't, what should I do to reply the Comments from the Editors and Reviewers?
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Have a nice weekend!!!
Sincerely Yours,
Mr. ×××

Dear Mr ×××：
I have e-mailed the handling editor of your paper and asked if your submisison was accepted in
error as the comments provided indicate that a revision was required. I hope that some further
If you should fail to receive any correspondence in the near future please feel free to contact me
ensuring to enclose this correspondence.
If you have any queries please feel free to contact me.
Yours sincerely
×××

Dear Editor:
In your last E-mail on Feb 28,you told me that you had asked the handling editor of my
paper .Thank you very much for your hard work.
fax last week,and the editor ××× have replied to me.So I don't know if I should revise my paper
now.Hehe,I hope I can receive the proof of my article in the near future.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Sincerely Yours,
Mr. ×××

Dear ×××：
within the next week or so. Once received you can view the proof and any corrections needed you
should send back to the address as indicated.
If you should have any further queries feel free to contact us.
Yours sincerely
×××

• 本文已收录于以下专栏：

## PHP提取第一张图片+生成缩略图+图片添加水印

PHP获取网站文章的第一张图片
• wuhuagu_wuhuaguo
• 2017年03月11日 01:56
• 265

## bzoj 1984: 月下“毛景树” 线段树+树链剖分

• qq_33229466
• 2016年11月15日 08:13
• 283

## 如何写投稿信 （How to write a cover letter）

• xinhuasz
• 2016年05月28日 11:26
• 2238

## Cover Letter实用指南

1、 什么是Cover Letter？ 指的是投稿信 2、cover letter的内容主要包括那些？ 应该简述所投稿件的核心内容、主要发现和意义，拟投期刊，对稿件处理有无特殊要求等（如...
• qium2014
• 2015年11月26日 11:18
• 320

## hdu4145 Cover The Enemy(贪心+枚举)

• qq_15714857
• 2015年05月14日 23:45
• 465

## MaterialDesign之SearchView全面解锁

• laizhixue
• 2018年02月09日 17:08
• 38

## IEEE Communications Letters - cover letter

IEEE Communications Letters - cover letter
• ztguang
• 2017年08月05日 17:45
• 462

## SCI 投稿Cover letter模板大全

• wangkr111
• 2015年06月09日 17:04
• 6461

## CodeForces 462B Appleman and Card Game 贪心

• qq_27508477
• 2015年08月05日 21:19
• 311

## poj 2528 Mayor's posters（扫描线+堆维护||离散化+线段树）

Mayor's posters Time Limit: 1000MS   Memory Limit: 65536K Total Submissions: 25116 ...
• fp_hzq
• 2012年04月25日 18:30
• 568

举报原因： 您举报文章：Cover Letter实用指南 色情 政治 抄袭 广告 招聘 骂人 其他 (最多只允许输入30个字)