Dear Editors and Reviewers.Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “A simple method for preparation of ****** used as active, stable and biocompatible SERS substrate by using electrostatic self-aembly”(ID: ******-09-1602).Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches.We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval.Revised portion are marked in red in the paper.The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
Responds to the reviewer’s comments:
Reviewer 1#
Response to comment: The review is complete and the main objection lies with the English language.I point out a few sentences only from the ABSTRACT and Conclusion.The rest corrections have to be done by the authors.I encourage the authors for small sentences.ABSTRACT-A new SERS-active ****** on the surface of gla slide has been prepared by a low-cost electrochemical strategy at a proper voltage and polyvinyl alcohol(******)concentration
in electrolyte is performed.With scanning electron microscopy, the morphology of the Ag nanofilm is a two-dimensional structure with nano-scale regions should read as A new SERS-active ****** on the surface of gla slide has been prepared by a low-cost
electrochemical strategy using polyvinyl alcohol(******)at a proper voltage.The two dimensional morphology of the ****** has been examined by scanning electron microscopy.Conclusion--...The morphologies and SERS activity and stability of the ******s are characterized by SEM and SERS measurement, respectively.SERS spectra of ****** and ****** obtained from these ******s compare with those from Ag colloids, which reavals an excellent enhancement effect of the ******s as SERS-active substrates.should read as The morphology, stability and SERS activity of the ****** have been studied.The excellent enhancement of SERS spectra for ****** and ****** from the ****** is observed in comparison to the Ag colloid system...The whole MS needs to be edited before it is accepted for publication.Response: As the Reviewer's good instruction, we have tried our best to revise the English of the whole MS carefully.In order to make the whole MS better understanding, we have revised some
long sentences into short sentences and edited the whole MS according to the Reviewer’s instruction.Meanwhile, we also have asked some colleagues who are skilled authors of English language papers to help us for checking the English(see the revised MS).We hope that the language is now acceptable for the next review proce.Special thanks to you for your good comments.Reviewer 3#
1.Response to comment: English should be checked throughout the text by a native English speaker.Response: According to the reviewer's good instruction, we have revised the whole manuscript carefully and tried to avoid any grammar or syntax error.In addition, we have asked several colleagues who are skilled authors of English language papers to check the English.We hope that the language is now acceptable for the next review proce.2.Response to comment: The manuscript is too long.It must be shortened.The authors must be more concise.The introduction takes three pages.In fact, it is very hard to read the paper.There are several sentences that should be changed for a better understanding.Some corrections are done in the margins of the manuscript(pods file).I enclosed a copy of that.Response: We agree the reviewer's good advice.Yes, the manuscript is too long(especially the part of introduction), which is very hard to read the paper.And that, there are several sentences are hard for understanding.Thus, we have revised the original manuscript in order to reduce the length of the manuscript and make it better understanding(especially the part of Introduction).However, due to additional experiments and explanations are added in the revised manuscript according to the other Reviewer′s suggestion, the revised manuscript is still long in some sort.Neverthele, we have revised the sentences(especially some long sentences)for the whole manuscript in order to make the manuscript more concise.Especially, the corrections done in the margins of the manuscript(pods file)which the Reviewer enclosed are very helpful to us.We are very appreciated for the Reviewers good comments and corrections made for our manuscript.3.Response to comment: Repetitions and several adjectives should be avoided.For example: authors use ".active, stable and biocompatible SERS substrate." a lot of times through the text.Also, they indicate ".perfect stability of." or ".perfect biocompatible." Well, SERS spectra of SC become weaker when the time goes on thus, no Raman signal will be obtained for a long, long time.It means, that the time deteriorates Ag surface.I think that "perfect" is not a good adjective.Response: It is really true as the Reviewer suggested that some repetitions and several adjectives should be avoided.Thus, we have made corrections according to the Reviewer’s good instructions.We have deleted the repeated words such as "active", "stable" and "biocompatible" in some sentences.Meanwhile, like the Reviewer questioned that we have not studied the SERS spectra of SC for a long, long time.Thus, the using of "perfect" to describe the SERS substrate of Ag nanofilm is inapposite.Considering the Reviewer’s good suggestion, we have deleted this adjective in some sentences of the revised manuscript.4.Response to comment: About organization of the manuscript.There are too many epigrap****** in
section 2.I propose the following points:
2.1.Reagents.Preparation of ****** and ******(old points 2.1 and 2.2 together)
2.2.Preparation of ******-protected Ag nanoparticles and ******s(old points 2.3 and 2.4 together)
2.3.Experimental equipments(old points 2.5;2.6 and 2.7 together)Response: Considering the Reviewer’s good suggestion, we have re-organized the epigrap****** in section 2.We have organized three parts for the section 2 of the revised manuscript.The epigrap****** in section 2 are as following: 2.1.Reagents and preparation of ****** and ******
2.2.Preparation of ******-protected ******(******-Ag CNPs)and ******s 2.3.Experimental equipments
Special thanks to you for your good comments.Dear Editors and Reviewers.We have tried our best to revise and improve the manuscript and made great changes in the manuscript according to the Reviwers′good comments.And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper.We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the corrections will meet with approval.Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.We look forward to your information about my revised papers and thank you for your good comments.Yours sincerely, R.M.Liu
5.Response to comment: Point 3.3 is entitled "stability and repeatability of ******s".Some
questions: Here, it is shown the dependence of SERS relative intensities of SC on time.Is it the same sample(******-adsorbate)that is stored and then SERS spectra are recorded at different times? or instead, the same ****** is stored and then the adsorbate is added at different times and thereafter the SERS spectra are recorded?? Authors should clarify the procedure.Are different results expected with these two procedures? Have been these two methods checked? It is poible that only ******s stored without adsorbate are active for a longer time?
Experimentally it is often observed that roughed surface in SERS produces molecular degradation and a comparation between Raman and SERS spectra is neceary to identify the molecular fundamental modes.Why the authors did not record Raman spectra of SC? Raman spectra should be added to Fig.5.The point 3.3 should be 3.2 because a characteristic of surface is explained and must follow point 3.1.The old 3.2 becomes 3.3.Moreover, old epigrap****** 3.2.1.and 3.2.2 should be removed and a unique point 3.3.should be presented instead and entitled " Biocompatibility of ******s.SERS spectra of ****** and ******".Also, epigraph 3.4 must be removed and the text must follow to the new section 3.3.Response: We are very sorry for our unclear report in the section of 3.3.For the first question proposed by the Reviewer, our answer is as following: Yes, in the section of 3.3, the main intention is to display the stability and reproducibility of Ag
nanofilms.Fig.6(in the original manuscript, Fig.5 in the revised manuscript)shows the dependence of SERS relative intensities of SC on time.In this section, the ******s are stored and then the adsorbate is added at different times and thereafter the SERS spectra are recorded.For the second question proposed by Reviewer, our answer is as following:
As the Reviewer's good instruction, we have clarified the procedure in the revised manuscript.However, in this study, we have not studied the first procedure of the same sample(******-adsorbate)that is stored and then SERS spectra are recorded at different times.Thus, these two methods have not been checked.Take the time limit of the submiion of the revised manuscript into account;it is difficult to carry out the first procedure in the revised manuscript.However, we appreciate for the Reviewers’ good advice earnestly.We will check these two procedures in future studies.For the third question proposed by Reviewer, our answer is as following: According to the Reviewer's good instruction, we have recorded Raman spectra of SC in solid state, as shown in Fig.1(a)(Fig.4(a)in revised manuscript).Meanwhile, the points 3.2 and 3.3 have also been re-written according to the instructions proposed by the Reviewer.(See the section of 3.2 and 3.3 in the revised manuscript)
图略
Fig1.man spectrum of(a)solid SC.SERS spectra of 1.0×10 mol/L SC aqueous solution
adsorbed on(b)gla slide,(c)******-Ag CNPs, and(d)******, respectively.6.Response to comment: Sentence "the number of spectra for every condition is five"(page 9)or the number of spectra is 5(Table 1 and 2), what does it mean? Perhaps something like this: Each
SERS spectrum is recorded 5 times in different points of the ****** surface? Response: As the Reviewer's good question, the sentence of “the number of spectra for every
condition is five" or “the number of spectra is 5(Table 1 and 2)” in the original manuscript is hard to be understood.This sentence means that each SERS spectrum is recorded 5 times in differpoints of the ****** surface.we have revised this sentence in the revised manuscript according to the Reviewer's advice.7.Response to comment: Epigrap****** of Table 1 and 2 should be revised.Corrections are indicated in the manuscript.Response: According to the Reviewer's good instruction, we have revised the epigrap****** of Table
1 and 2.The epigraph of Table 1 “Table 1 Preliminary aignations of the Raman bands(Mean ± S.D., n=5)for the SERS spectra of ******.The number of spectra is 5” is revised as “Aignments for the SERS bands(Mean ± S.D., n=5)of ******(based on Refs.[25-30]).”
The epigraph of Table 2 “Table 2 Observed wavenumbers(Mean ± S.D., n=5), aignments，and local coordinates of ******, excited at 785 nm.The number of spectra is 5.[35-37]” is revised as “Table 2 Aignments for the SERS bands(Mean ± S.D., n=5)of ******(based on Refs.[32-34]).”
8.Response to comment: Figure 4 shows SERS spectra of ****** and ****** recorded on different Ag nanofilms.What do authors want to say? This experiment is to check the reproducibility of the method? Thus, it is better to use the word "reproducibility" and not "repeatability".This must be clarified in the text.Response: As the Reviewer's good advice, we should use the word “reproducibility” and not
"repeatability".Figure 4(in the original manuscript)shows SERS spectra of ****** and ****** recorded on the different ******s prepared under the same conditions.The authors want to display the reproducibility of the ******s prepared by this simple method.Thus, we have replaced the
word "repeatability" by "reproducibility" in the revised manuscript.9.Response to comment: Uv-vis absorption spectrum of ******-protected Ag nanoparticules shows a maximum at 418 nm and at 785 nm the absorbance is zero(Figure 1b).Given that SERS spectra are recorded at 785 nm, I think that this excitation line is very far from the maximum to obtain a good signal.In fact, the Raman signal is very weak(Figure 3).Is it poible to obtain a better signal employing another excitation laser, for example, 514nm? I mean, probably the 785nm line is better for ****** than for ******-protected Ag nanoparticules, but under other different excitation laser the ******-protected Ag nanoparticules could be a good substrate for ****** or ******.Have been checked different excitation laser lines?
Response: We are very sorry for our negligence of the explanation for why SERS spectra of ******
and ****** are recorded at 785 nm.In the studying of the SERS effect of ****** and ******, we think that the excitation with the 785 nm wavelength has a number of advantageous features compared to [a] other wavelengt******.A previous study has reported that a laser wavelength shorter than 514.5 nm is known to enhance photodiociation and cause protein degradation even at a low power.However, the sample damage can be avoided using laser light of a longer wavelength.No paling effects were observed using laser light with wavelength ≥660 nm.In their study, degradation of the biological objects was observed when using 514.5 nm excitation lasers.Meanwhile, it is known that when using 660 nm irradiation, for a laser power of 10mW and a diameter of 10 μm, 2the light intensity is up to 127 MW/m.In our system, the laser power is set at 65mW and the 2 3 2 diameter is 90μm.So the light intensity was ca.10 MW/m(10 W/cm), which is much smaller than that of 660 nm irradiation.Thus, in our studies, we employed a 65-mW, 785-nm diode laser to record the Raman and SERS spectra of ****** and ****** in order to avoid the photodiociation and degradation of the proteins.[a] G.J.Puppels, J.H.F.Olminkhof, G.M.J.Segers-Nolten, C.Otto, F.F.M.Demul, J.Greve.Laser Irradiation and Raman Spectroscopy of Single Living Cells and Chromosomes: Sample Degradation Occurs with 514.5 nm but not with 660 nm Laser Light.Exp.Cell Res, 195(1991)361.Special thanks to you for your good comments.Reviewer 4#
1.Response to comment: I'm not familiar with blood sample preparation but I wasn't able to extract the final concentration of ****** and ****** added to the ******-NPs and ******.This value has to be clearly reported in the text.Response: As the Reviewer suggested that we have calculated the final concentration of ****** and ****** added to the ******-protected ******(******-Ag CNPs)and ****** in the revised manuscript.According our calculation, the final concentration of ****** and ****** added to ****** is ca.4.8 and 1.5%, respectively.However, take the dilution of the Ag colloid into account, the final concentration of ****** and ****** added to the ******-Ag CNPs is ca.0.27 and 0.08 %, respectively.All these concentrations have been added in the revised manuscript.Although the final concentrations of ****** added to the ******-NPs and ****** are different, the quantity of ****** lighted by the laser spot based on ******(ca.6.075×10 g)equals to(in order of magnitude)that based on ******-Ag CNP samples(ca.5.087×10
g).Similarly, the quantity of ****** lighted by the laser spot based on ******(ca.1.944×10 g)equals to(in order of magnitude)that based on ******-Ag CNPs(ca.1.717×10 g).Take the SERS detection of ****** for example: For the SERS detection of ****** based on ******-Ag CNPs, the probe volume is considered a focal [b]“tube”
with a waist diameter of 90 ?m and a depth of ca.1cm.By using the concentration of ******(0.08%)one can determine the quantity of ****** molecules contributing to the Raman intensity((1000+60)×10 ×0.08% × ?(45 ×10)×1×10 / [(1000+60)×10 ] ~ 5.087×10 g).For the SERS detection of ****** based on ******, supposing that all the ****** molecules adsorbed on the surface of ****** evenly, one can determine the quantity of ****** molecules contributing to the Raman intensity(~(50)×10 ×1.5% × ?(45 ×10)
/ ?(5 ×10)~ 6.075×10 g).[b] L.Baia, K.Gigant, U.Poet, et al.Appl.Spectrosc, 56(2002)536.(2)Response to comment:
In the experimental results section does not appear how the SERS
measurements on ******-NPs were performed.Response: We are very sorry for our negligence of introduce how the SERS measurements on ******-Ag CNPs were performed in the experimental results section.As Reviewer suggested that we have made complementarities of this experimental proce in the section of 2.3 of the revised manuscript.(the section of 2.3, 16-20 lines)
(3)Response to comment: A significant comparison between the SERS activities of ******-NPs
and ****** substrates is not poible based on what reported in the paper.For instance, is the
number of NPs lighted by the laser spot equals for ******-NP and ****** samples? The authors have to make clear to the reader what they are comparing.Moreover, the normal Raman of ****** and ****** in solution and/or in solid state in fig.3 would be helpful to understand the effect of the metal-analyte interaction.Response: We are very sorry for our unclear description of what the SERS activities of ******-NPs
and ****** substrates are comparing.In Fig 3 of the original manuscript(Fig 8 in revised
manuscript), we mainly want to tell the reader the ******-Ag CNPs are unfit for the SERS detection
of ****** and ******, compared to the ******s prepared by electrostatic self-aembly with the
******-Ag CNPs.That is, the SERS effect of ******-Ag CNPs for ****** and ****** is much weaker than that of ******.According to the Reviewer good question(“is the number of NPs lighted by the laser spot equals for ******-NP and ****** samples?”), we have calculated the number of NPs lighted by the laser spot for ******-Ag CNPs and ******s.The calculation results show that the number of NPs lighted by the laser spot is not equal for ******-Ag CNPs and ******s.One can calculate the concentration of the ******-Ag CNPs in Ag colloid is ca.1.26×10 /m according to the electrochemical reaction in our work.For the SERS detection based on ******-Ag CNPs, the probe volume was considered a focal “tube” with a waist diameter of 90 ?m and a depth of ca.1cm.By using the concentration of ******-Ag CNPs in Ag colloid(1.26×10 /m)one can determine the number of NPs lighted by the laser spot(1.26×10 × ?(45×10)×1×10 ~ 68.011×10).For the SERS detection based on ******, by supposing that the distribution of the NPs on the surface of ****** is uniform, one can determine the number of NPs lighted by the laser spot(?(45 ×10)/?(200 ×10 /2)
~2.025×10).It can be seen that, the number of NPs lighted by the laser spot for ******-Ag CNPs is more than that for ******s.However, the experimental results show that the SERS effect of ****** and ****** on ******-Ag CNPs is much weaker than that on ******s, indicating that the SERS activity of ******s is better than that of ******-Ag CNPs.As the Reviewer suggested that, we have recorded the normal Raman scattering of ****** and ****** in solid state, as shown in Fig 2A(c)and Fig 2B(c), respectively.Very weak Raman signals are observed from solid ****** and ******.We know that Raman spectroscopy is a powerful tool that gives precise information on the vibration energies of molecules, and can provide the fingerprint for unique chemical identification.However, the Raman scattering cro section of most biological macromolecules is extremely small, which causes the Raman signals of biological [c]macromolecules are very difficult to obtain.Thus, in this paper, we attempt to obtain new SERS substrates to solve this question.Such as the Ag nanofilms prepared by using electrostatic self-aembly with the ******-Ag CNPs in this work.图略
Fig.2.(a)Raman spectrum of(A)solid ****** and(B)solid ******.SERS spectra of(A)****** and(B)
****** solution adorbed on(b)******-Ag CNPs and(c)******, respectively.[c] R.Kumar,H.Zhou,S.B.Cronin, Appl.Phys.Lett.91(2005)223105.(4)Response to comment:
It is quite expected that larger EM enhancement occurs on aggregated NPs adsorbed on the gla slide with respect to the un-aggregated ******-NPs.As far as I understood, the key point of the paper is the fabrication of ****** with interparticle regions of ca.300 nm where the ****** and ****** molecules can be located, leading then to intense SERS signals.Therefore, this new substrate should be compared to other silver nanofilms which do not present these cavities, in order, also, to give some evidences to the previous hypothesis, which is a mere speculation based on the results reported in the article.Response: As the Reviewer suggested that we have checked the new substrate with another silver
nanofilm which dose not present these cavities.Fig.3a(following)shows the SEM image of a
common ****** prepared using coupling agent of cysteamine and common Ag NPs on the
surface of the gla slide.It shows that the average size of the particles on the surface of this common ****** is ca.75 ± 5 nm, which is much smaller than that(200 ± 50 nm)of the
particles on the surface of the new ****** prepared using electrostatic self-aembly with
******-Ag CNPs(Fig.3b).Meanwhile, single layer of Ag nanoparticles is observed and no lots of
nano-scale regions are formed on the surface of the common ******.Fig.4(following)shows the SERS spectra of ****** solution(1.5 %, 50 ?L)on this common Ag nanofilm(Fig.4 a)and the new ******(Fig.4b)with a diameter of 1 cm, respectively.It shows that the EM enhancement occurs on the common ****** is weaker than that on the new ******.Meanwhile, striking spectral differences are seen in SERS spectra at 812, and 1022 cm , indicating that the orientation of the adsorbed ****** molecules is different on these two ******s.We think that it is mainly related to the surface characteristics of this new Ag nanofilm.On the surface of the new ******, the average size of the aggregated particles is up to ca.200 ± 50 nm, which is much larger than that of the common ******.It improves the adsorption ability of the ****** molecules onto the surface of the new ****** effectively.Meanwhile, lots of nano-scale regions with the size of ca.300 ± 50 nm are formed between the adjacent nanoparticles on the surface of the new ******, which makes ****** molecules can be embedded in effectively.It implies that the presence of nano-scale regions on the surface of the new ****** is an important factor for SERS effect of biological macromolecules.图略
Fig.3.SEM image of the ****** prepared by using coupling agent of cysteamine(a)and by
using electrostatic self-aembly with ******-Ag CNPs(b)on gla slide.图略
Fig.4.SERS spectra of ****** solution(1.5 %)on(a)the common ****** prepared by using
coupling agent of cysteamine and common Ag nanoparticles and(b)on the ****** prepared by
using electrostatic self-aembly with ******-Ag CNPs, respectively.(5)Response to comment: The SERS spectra showed in fig.5c is doubtfully aigned to ******.I suggest to the authors to carry out control experiments so that to rule out the presence of impurities on their silver film.In the following paper is reported the SERS spectrum of Citrate anion on silver NPs: Title: Anomalous Raman bands appearing in surface-enhanced Raman spectra Author(s): Sanchez-Cortes, S;Garcia-Ramos, JV Source: JOURNAL OF RAMAN SPECTROSCOPY Volume: 29
Iue: 5
Pages: 365-371 Published: MAY 1998
Response: We are very grateful for your providing of the reference above.We have read this reference carefully.As Sanchez-Cortes et al.reported that the ions and new molecular species
resulting from the reduction of the metal will remain in the colloid system(especially in the citrate colloids), which has an obvious impact on the SERS of the analyte.Thus, in our present work, we employed the method of electrolysis to obtain ******-Ag CNPs, and employed the method of electrostatic self-aembly to obtain ******s.In our experiment of preparation of ******-Ag CNPs, ****** was not employed act as reducing agent in order to avoid the effect of citrate anion on the SERS of the analyte recorded on the surface of the new ******s.Considering the Reviewer’s good instruction, we have carried out a control experiment.In this control experiment, we have checked the Raman scattering on the surface of the new ********s prepared under the same conditions, as shown in following Fig.5.The experimental results show that the effect of the impurities on the surfaces of these ******s on the SERS of the analyte is negligible.Meanwhile, as reported by Sanchez-Cortes et al., the Raman spectrum of solid citrate is shown [d]in Fig.6 a.We can see that the main SERS bands of solid citrate recorded by us(Fig.7)are close to the Raman bands of solid citrate reported by Sanchez-Cortes et al.图略
Fig.3.Raman spectra of the surfaces of the different ******s(a, b, c, d)prepared using
electrostatic self-aembly with ******-Ag CNPs.图略
Fig.6.Effect of excitation wavelength on the SERS background of an aggregated citrate colloid:
(A)FT-Raman spectrum of solid citrate(λex=l 064 nm);(B)FT-Raman spectrum of aqueous citrate(2 M, λex=l 064 nm);(C)FT-SER spectrum of the aggregated colloid after addition of NO3(0.05 M)(λex=1064nm);(D)SERS spectrum of the same sample with excitation at 514.5 nm.图略
Fig.7.SERS spectra of ****** based on ****** prepared by using electrostatic self-aembly with ******-Ag CNPs.[d] S.S.Corte and J.V.G.Ramos.Anomalous Raman Bands Appearing in Surface-Enhanced
Raman Spectra.JOURNAL OF RAMAN SPECTROSCOPY.29(1998)365.Special thanks to you for your good comments and suggestions！
Dear Editors and Reviewers.We have tried our best to revise and improve the manuscript and made great changes in the
manuscript according to the Reviwers′good comments.And here we did not list the changes but
marked in red in revised paper.We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the corrections will meet with approval.Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.We look forward to your information about my revised papers and thank you for your good
comments.Yours sincerely, R.M.Liu
第2篇：基于SCI发表的SCI论文格式简述
SCI发表的SCI论文格式简述
1.原创内容
SCI论文的原创是基本的学术道德，SCI期刊虽不会过多提出要求作者的原创性，但保证原创是SCI发表的根本要素之一。时下很多声称能做SCI论文撰写的皮包公司，根本没有学术团队，靠着对SCI论文发表流程的一些皮毛行骗，其写出来的内容也多是编造与抄袭，这样的文章被同行发现是会出严重后果的。
2.新颖创新
任何一家SCI期刊杂志都不会收录毫无创新点的文章，这不利于SCI期刊杂志的长期发表，这明显与国内某些低质量杂志不同。例如：中国科学院上海生化所办刊的Cell Research杂志，其收入是靠赞助商的资助，而不是区区稿费。
3.条理清晰
一篇文章的条理如果不清晰会使审稿人感动困惑，这样就浪费了一个创新思路。在撰写Introduction部分时，比如写维生素D3在食管癌预防中的作用时，写作思路如下：先写食管癌定义，发病率情况，给人类健康带来了极大危害。因此，我们研究血浆维生素D3水平在食管癌预防中的作用。这样写就非常随意，完全没体现出为什么是检查血浆内的维生素D3水平，而不是其主要体内主要代谢产物水平在食管癌预防中的作用。关于Introduction与Discuion的写作.4.目的明确
SCI论文的Introduction部分，要阐述为什么要研究维生素D3在食管癌预防中的作用，应该从以下几个方面着手：食管癌发病情况略作介绍（2-3个句子即可）。关键是找寻维生素D3及其代谢产物在食管癌预防方面的相关报道。通过检索发现，既往均为对维生素D3的代谢产物进行阐述，那么可以列举其主要代谢产物在抗癌中的作用及机理（挑选重点，要能自圆其说）。最后，要解释为什么是研究维生素D3而不是其代谢产物对食管癌预防中的作用，理由有：维生素是直接通过饮食摄入的，该研究可以为食管癌患者饮食方面提供一定的帮助。
5.方法可靠
方法学部份可以从简，但一定要具有重复性。
6.结果可验
SCI论文发表的本质就在于此，如果是靠编造的数据那么结果就往往会出现偏差。其中的统计学部份，要找对方法，不能拼凑显著性差异，如果选择不当的统计学方法，也不能修改原始的数据。此为审稿人最看重的部份，一定会借助大量的信息检索或借助方法进行核实。
7.科研意义
SCI论文的Discuion并不是要求作者进行结果的进一步阐述，一个写好Discuion可以突出整篇文章的科研意义。
第3篇：SCI感谢信（推荐）
你真的会写sci修改的回复信吗？（转载）
文章修回一般都要回复审稿人，而一篇文章能不能接收，与如何回复审稿人有着极为重要的关系。好的回复是文章接收的重要砝码，而不恰当的回复轻则可能导致再次修改，从而拖延发稿时间；重则导致文章被拒，前功尽弃。那么如何进行精简全面的回复审稿人呢，请您往下看：
1：回复信开头，（1）若给我们的修回邮件中有主编名字则要写上其名字：dear dr.**，以示尊重；若没有编辑个人信息则可以写为：dear editor等。
（2）文章编号即文章的id，要与邮件中显示的编号一致，也可以去投稿系统中查找。因为编辑每天要处理许多稿件，回复信中这样写可以让编辑和审稿人清楚的知道我们是哪篇文章，正所谓与人方便，与己方便。
（3）回复信开头一般要先说明稿件中如何进行的修改，例如在文中以加粗，红色字或者ms模式修订等标亮；然后感谢审稿人及编辑的审阅及评价；另外，还需要在该部分体现出文章题目（最好加粗或者斜体等方式标亮）；最后是客套话，如我们还想继续提交到您的****杂志，希望您再帮忙审阅等等。
要注意语言一定表达中肯、谦逊，语言流畅。2.接下来，就可以对审稿人的意见一一回复，主要包括各审稿人的各个问题，还有我们的一一感谢，及修改方式。这里，需要注意的是：
（2）每一条意见回复前最好先对审稿人表示感谢，礼多人不怪，为了顺利发表，多写几个字又何妨呢；
（3）能准确完整的补充审稿人提出的要求；不能补充的资料能够引用文献充分的论证，有理有据；
（4）详细的列出修改的内容；（5）语气委婉，谦逊；
（6）能够随机应变，回复审稿人的意见最好恰到好处。3.第三部分就是信件的结束语。
这里无非还是再次感谢，最后就是your sincerely及通讯作者的署名了。
回复审稿人信件犹如点睛之笔，如果回复不合适就可能是弄巧成拙，所以，有疑问的亲们，赶紧提问吧，我们会一一接招解答。篇2：写作sci论文投稿回复信 写作sci论文投稿回复信 1.感谢到底原则 2.毛举缕析原则
具体说来就是要达到：审稿人不需要看修改稿，只需看回复信即可清楚了解作者几乎所有的修改，包括修改后的图、表、加入的参考文献，每个修改的前后句子及其所属的页、段及行数。如果关于写作sci论文修改太多，我们无法在回复信中一一展示时，也要举几个改动大的例子。3.一条不少原则
所有问题必须逐条认认真真回答。point-by-point，one by one。即使两个审稿人的意见是重复的也要分别回答，详细具体。各审稿人的问题和我们的回复要显著区分开。凡是缺点我们都要逐个改正，凡是夸奖，我们都要一一感谢。
另外，附上几个写作sci论文常用的感谢词，供大家参考： thanksfor your kind suggestion weare very sorry for our poor english.thankyou for your technical review.withall due respect to the reviewer, we felt that this point is not correct.sci投稿全过程信件模板与相关内容 1 2.1
一、最初投稿cover letter...................................................................................................................2 2.2
二、催稿信 ...........................................................................................................................................3 2.3
.jpg)
