Luyenkim.Net!

CHECKLIST TO USE BEFORE SUBMITTING A PAPER TO A JOURNAL
Have you --------------?
1 spell checked the whole paper?
2 rewritten your paper at least three times?
3 stopped working on your paper for a day?
To see and hear your words better when you look at it again.
4 put your main point into your title?
5 put your most significant findings first? Your gold first?
6 made it easy for readers to tell from your title and your abstract what is new and important about your work?
7 made sure all your verbs and subjects match?
Plural verbs have plural subjects? Singular verbs have singular subjects?
8 spelled the same name exactly the same way throughout your paper?
NOT “Bragg. . . .Brag”
BUT BRAGG every time!
9 asked a friend or a native English speaker to read your paper and tell you what’s confusing or unclear?
10 changed nouns to adjectives when necessary?
NOT “three dimension ordered array”
BUT “three dimensional ordered array”
11 used active verbs rather than passive verbs as much as possible?
NOT “The effects were investigated. . .”
BUT “We investigated the effects”
12 found a way to break a sentence that’s much too long (over 4 lines) into two sentences?
13 broken up a paragraph that is way too long into two paragraphs?
14 tried to reduce your paper to its skeleton by making a one page outline of it?
Might help you see if your paper is organized in the best possible way.


15 Made all equivalent items look the same?
NOT “scheme 1 . . . .Scheme 2”
BUT “Scheme 1. . . Scheme 2”
16 removed all contractions, such as “can’t” or “couldn’t”? and changed them to “cannot” or “could not”?
17 checked the columns of numbers in your Tables and made all the decimal points in the same column line up vertically?
18 put a noun right after “this” or “these” every time you use one of those words?
19 moved “however” away from the beginning of sentences to a spot later in a sentence where it sounds better?
20 made all your abbreviations the same?
NOT 48 hrs 3 hours 2 h five h
BUT 48 h 3 h 2 h 5 h
21 used strong definite words?
NOT “We have been interested in”
BUT “We have focused on”
22 used parallel wording where you lead your readers to expect it?
NOT “not only for fabricating. .but also for reduction”
BUT “not only for fabricating. . .but also for reducing. . .”
OR “not only for the formation of. . .but also for the elimination of. . “
Don’t mix words ending in “ing” with “ion” words.
23 proofread your paper 3 times? At least!
24 read your paper aloud to yourself?
25 Did you use “later” when you meant “latter”?
26 looked for fruit in your figure captions?
A fig is a fruit you can eat, but “Fig.” is the correct abbreviation for “Figure.” Don’t forget the period in the abbreviation.
27 proofread your references? Made sure that a journal title, no matter how often it occurs, is always spelled the same way?
28 followed the reference format for the journal you are submitting to?

---

SCI submit some of the letters sentences
letter
1. Dear Dr. Defendi ML:
I am sending a manuscript entitled “” by – which I should like to submit for possible publication in the journal of - .
Yours sincerely

2. Dear Dr. A:
Enclosed is a manuscript entitled “” by sb, which we are submitting for publication in the journal of - . We have chosen this journal because it deals with - . We believe that sth would be of interest to the journal’s readers.

3. Dear Dr. A:
Please find enclosed for your review an original research article, “” by sb. All authors have read and approve this version of the article, and due care has been taken to ensure the integrity of the work. No part of this paper has published or submitted elsewhere. No conflict of interest exits in the submission of this manuscript, and we have attached to this letter the signed letter granting us permission to use Figure 1 from another source.

We appreciate your consideration of our manuscript, and we look forward to receiving comments from the reviewers.

Asked whether the contributions receivedDear Editors,

We dispatched our manuscript to your journal on 3 August 2006 but have not, as yet, receive acknowledgement of their safe arrival. We fear that may have been lost and should be grateful if you would let us know whether or not you have received them. If not, we will send our manuscript again. Thank you in advance for your help.

four、Asked to review papers echoDear Editors，
It is more than 12 weeks since I submitted our manuscript (No: ) for possible publication in your journal. I have not yet received a reply and am wondering whether you have reached a decision. I should appreciated your letting me know what you have decided as soon as possible.

Papers on the overall review of the opinion
1. This is a carefully done study and the findings are of considerable interest. A few minor revision are list below.
2. This is a well-written paper containing interesting results which merit publication. For the benefit of the reader, however, a number of points need clarifying and certain statements require further justification. There are given below.
3. Although these observation are interesting, they are rather limited and do not advance our knowledge of the subject sufficiently to warrant publication in PNAS. We suggest that the authors try submitting their findings to specialist journal such as –
4. Although this paper is good, it would be ever better if some extra data were added.
5. This manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal of – because the main observation it describe was reported 3 years ago in a reputable journal of - .
6. Please ask someone familiar with English language to help you rewrite this paper. As you will see, I have made some correction at the beginning of the paper where some syntax is not satisfactory.
7. We feel that this potentially interesting study has been marred by an inability to communicate the finding correctly in English and should like to suggest that the authors seek the advice of someone with a good knowledge of English, preferable native speaker.
8. The wording and style of some section, particularly those concerning HPLC, need careful editing. Attention should be paid to the wording of those parts of the Discussion of and Summary which have been underlined.
9. Preliminary experiments only have been done and with exception of that summarized in Table 2, none has been repeated. This is clearly unsatisfactory, particularly when there is so much variation between assays.
10. The condition of incubation are poorly defined. What is the temperature? Were antibody used?

The letter to the editor
1. In reply to the referee’s main criticism of paper, it is possible to say that –
One minor point raised by the referee concerns of the extra composition of the reaction mixture in Figure 1. This has now been corrected. Further minor changes had been made on page 3, paragraph 1 (line 3-8) and 2 (line 6-11). These do not affect our interpretation of the result.
2. I have read the referee’s comments very carefully and conclude that the paper has been rejected on the sole grounds that it lake toxicity data. I admit that I did not include a toxicity table in my article although perhaps I should have done. This was for the sake of brevity rather than an error or omission.
3. Thank you for your letter of – and for the referee’s comments concerning our manuscript entitled “”. We have studied their comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with their approval.
4. I enclosed a revised manuscript which includes a report of additional experiments done at the referee’s suggestion. You will see that our original findings are confirmed.
5. We are sending the revised manuscript according to the comments of the reviewers. Revised portion are underlined in red.
6. We found the referee’s comments most helpful and have revised the manuscript
7. We are pleased to note the favorable comments of reviewers in their opening sentence.
8. Thank you for your letter. I am very pleased to learn that our manuscript is acceptable for publication in Cancer Research with minor revision.
9. We have therefore completed a further series of experiments, the result of which are summarized in Table 5. From this we conclude that intrinsic factor is not account.
10. We deleted the relevant passage since they are not essential to the contents of the paper.
11. I feel that the reviewer’s comments concerning Figures 1 and 2 result from a misinterpretation of the data.
12. We would have include a non-protein inhibitor in our system, as a control, if one had been available.
13. We prefer to retain the use of Table 4 for reasons that it should be clear from the new paragraph inserted at the end of the Results section.
14. Although reviewer does not consider it is important to measure the temperature of the cells, we consider it essential.
15. The running title has been changed to “”.
16. The Materials and Methods section now includes details for measuring uptake of isotope and assaying hexokinase.
17. The concentration of HAT media (page12 paragraph 2) was incorrectly stated in the original manuscript. This has been rectified. The authors are grateful to the referees for pointing out their error.
18. As suggested by both referees, a discussion of the possibility of laser action on chromosome has been included (page16, paragraph 2).
19. We included a new set of photographs with better definition than those originally submitted and to which a scale has been added.
20. Following the suggestion of the referees, we have redraw Figure 3 and 4.
21. Two further papers, published since our original submission, have been added to the text and Reference section. These are:
22. We should like to thank the referees for their helpful comments and hope that we have now produced a more balance and better account of our work. We trust that the revised manuscript is acceptable for publication.
23. I greatly appreciate both your help and that of the referees concerning improvement to this paper. I hope that the revised manuscript is now suitable for publication.
24. I should like to express my appreciation to you and the referees for suggesting how to improve our paper.
25. I apologize for the delay in revising the manuscript. This was due to our doing an additional experiment, as suggested by referees.

Give confident, enthusiastic, and persuasive presentations. With an emphasis on the need for preparation and practice, this course provides guidance on how to organize, create, and deliver effective presentations. Conquer your fear of public speaking. Prepare and deliver well organized presentations. Capture and maintain audience interest.

General Template for the first submission

English papers commonly used sentence

2007 Impact Factor

abbreviate and Full Name of journals

how to write article (11)
1.Guidelines for composition of a Bachelor or Master thesis
http://www.uni-kassel.de/fb11/alm/documents/12_05Eng.pdf

2.How do British and Japanese scientists publish their academic papers in English?
http://www1.tcue.ac.jp/home1/k-gakk...uukeisai/46_4/okamura.pdf

3.Theory of Science and Research Methodology EESI 2003
http://www.infra.kth.se/courses/1U1030/lecture1.pdf

4.How to Write a Scientific Paper?
http://www.asjog.org/journal/V2Issu...ientific%20article_Dr.pdf

5.Basics of Research Paper Writing and Publishing
http://ymotai.blog.uvm.edu/ee395/archives/meth-se.pdf

6.pubilish and prosper:
how to write a scientific research article for an academic journal
http://hedc2.otago.ac.nz/nzmsj/issue2/pdfs/education.pdf

7.how to write a scientific text
http://www.infra.kth.se/courses/1U1030/LectureNotes_A.pdf

8.scientific writing: A Friendly Guide
http://www.ykhoa.net/congtacvien/nguyenvantuan/Guide.pdf

9.Why manuscripts fail, according to 12 experts
http://www.soc.soton.ac.uk/CHD/staf...be/writing/mahrer-99a.pdf

10.Revision of Manuscripts For Scholarly Publication

http://www.asrt.org/media/pdf/R09_97DowdMcElveny.pdf

11.the meaning of the impact factor
http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/redalyc/pdf/337/33730210.pdf

SCIENTIFIC WRITINGBOOKLET









Tham khảo từ: _www.abcdfree.com

Thêm cả SCIE,..:

support wrote:
2007 Impact Factor

File gửi kèm:
Vui lòng đăng nhập để tải file
Độ lớn file: 582541

File gửi kèm:
Vui lòng đăng nhập để tải file
Độ lớn file: 634kB