Unit Ten Submitting PaperObjectives- Know the paper processing procedures- Become aware of politeness in letter writing- Write a submission cover letter and reply to the decision letterContents- Reading and discussion: A submission cover letter and a decision letter.- Language focus: politeness- Writing practice: submission cover letter; reply to a decision letter; inquiry letter 1.Reading ActivityYour research paper is finished. The next step is to submit the paper to a suitable academic journal. This unit aims to show you the review procedure, hopefully bring you an awareness of two language features of academic writing, and finally help you correspond with the edit-in-chief on your own.1.1Pre-reading TaskBefore you learn the detailed information, please discuss the following questions.What should you consider about the journal you are going to submit the paper to?What should you do to your paper before submission?What should be included in your submission E-mail?How can we sound polite when we write the submission cover letter and reply to the decision letter?1.2Reading PassagesLetter 1--A submission cover letterDear Dr. James Joyce,This is a manuscript entitled "A NOVEL ROOT-END FILLING MATERIAL BASED ON HYDROXYAPATITE, TETRACALCIUM PHOSPHATE ANDPOLYACRYLIC ACID " by Ling Huchong and Qiao Feng from State KeyLaboratory of Bioelectronics, School of Biological Science and MedicalEngineering, Southeast University, Nanjing, China. It is submitted to beconsidered for publication as an "Original Article" in your journal.No conflict of interest exits in the submission of this manuscript, and manuscript is approved by all authors for publication. I would like to declare on behalf of my co-authors that the work described was original research that has not been published previously, and not under consideration for publication elsewhere, in whole or in part.In this work, we developed a novel filling materialhydroxyapatite/tetracalcium phosphate/polyacrylic acid cement (HA/TTCP/PAA), and further examined its chemical composition, physical properties andcytotoxicity in comparison with glass ionomer cement (GIC) and Portland cement (PC). I hope this paper is suitable for “INTERNATIONAL ENDODONTICJOURNAL”.The following is a list of possible reviewers for your consideration:1) Professor Duan Yu E-mail: duanyu@2) Professor Shi Tai E-mail: shitai@We deeply appreciate your consideration of our manuscript, and we look forward to receiving comments from the reviewers. If you have any queries,please don’t hesitate to contact me at the address below.Enclosed please find the paper.Thank you and best regards.Yours sincerely,Ling HuchongCorresponding author:Prof. Dr. Qiao FengState Key Laboratory of BioelectronicsSchool of Biological Science and Medical EngineeringSoutheast UniversityNanjing 210096P.R. ChinaTel: (+8625) 12345678Fax: (+8625) 12345678E-mail: qiaofeng@1.3Reading Comprehension1.3.1List the contents that should be included in letter 1.①___________________________________________________________________②___________________________________________________________________③___________________________________________________________________④___________________________________________________________________⑤___________________________________________________________________⑥___________________________________________________________________Letter 2----A decision letterFrom:iejeditor@To:Qiao Feng@CC:Ling Huchong@Subject:Manuscript ID IEJ-12-00123, International Endodontic JournalBody:Dear Dr. Qiao,Manuscript ID: IEJ-12-00123Manuscript Title: Hydroxyapatite/Tetracalcium Phosphate/Polyacrylic Acid Cement:Chemical-Physical Properties and CytotoxicityI have received the comments of the referees(s) and decided that your manuscript requiresmajor changes and then go through the refereeing process again. However, please note thatresubmitting your manuscript does not guarantee eventual acceptance.Should you wish to revise and resubmit your manuscript, please revise your paper takinginto account any points they have raised - their comments can be found at the end of thisemail. Also double check that in the body of the text and in the Reference section thenames of authors are spelt correctly including any non-English characters whereappropriate.You will be unable to make your revisions online using the originally submitted version ofthe manuscript. Instead, revise your manuscript on your PC/MAC using your wordprocessing programme and save it on your computer. Please highlight the changes to yourmanuscript within the document by using the "track changes" mode in MS Word orequivalent.To upload your revised manuscript, log on to /iej andenter your Author Centre, where you will find your original manuscript title listed under "Manuscripts with Decisions". Under "Actions," click on "Create a Revision". Your manuscript number has been appended to denote a revision.When submitting your revised manuscript, you will be able to respond to the comments made by the referees(s) in the space provided. You can use this space to document any changes you have made to the original manuscript. Please be as specific as possible in your response to the referee(s).I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.Kind regardsPaul DummerEditor-in-Chief,International Endodontic Journaliejeditor@Editor comments to authors:EditorComments to the Author:(There are no comments.)Referee(s) comments to authors:Referee: 1Comments to AuthorTitle: Hydroxyapatite/Tetracalcium Phosphate/Polyacrylic Acid Cement:Chemical-Physical Properties and CytotoxicityThis manuscript introduces the reader to a new retrograde filling material and describes the tests that were conducted and the comparison to currently used materials. The section Discussion was well done and discussed the relevance of each test to published research as well as relevant clinical applications.It would be helpful if the title would reflect that this report is on a root end filling material.General comment. The entire manuscript needs to be edited for proper use of the English language and syntax.IntroductionThe sentence: “However, its defects prohibit clinical applications…..”. The word “defect” is an odd choice. “shortcomings” would be more appropriate.The sentence: “To overcome these disadvantages, a new material,hydroxyapatite/tetracalciumphosphate/polyacrylic acid cement (HA/TTCP/PAA), with optimum properties, has been developed.”Authors you are reporting on your findings of your novel cement but already conclude in this Introduction that it has “optimum properties”. At best you can state that it was your intent to develop a material with optimum or improved properties.Authors: Check instructions for authors for the required journal format for referring to the published literature.Materials and MethodsThe sentence: “The HA/TTCP/PAA paste was mixed….and the mixed wit h distilled water…” Authors, after you have crushed the powders it makes no sense to describe the HA/TTCP/PAA as a paste.“The paste of HA/TTCP/PAA, GIC and GPC were placed into a plastic plate… 37°C in 100%” Authors, use better description than “plastic plate”.“The final setting time was the average result of five sample specimens.” The words sample and specimens are synonymous.“Compressive strength was calculated from the mean value of five samples of each group”. You probably mean to say that the m ean value for each group was derived from the 5 samples.“The materials were set in the molds for 24 h at 37°C in 100%humidity”. The meaning the materials were set is not clear. Please explain this method better.“The HA/TTCP/PAA, GIC and GPC pastes we re manually shaped separately into an 8 mm diameter ball within 1 min….” Authors, it would be better to describe this as follows: At standard liquid/powder ratios each material was mixed and immediately, but within 1 min, manipulated into a ball.Although the test that was described lacks any scientific foundation, the figures were convincing.“The unreactive supernatants in the well were carefully sucked off, and 600 μL ….” Authors, use a better word than “sucked off” to remove the supernatants.Washout resistance test“The washout resistance result for the HA/TTCP/PAA showed no noticeable disintegration (figure 4); however, GIC paste balls had a large amount of debris…”Replace the word “debris”. The actual release of particles or dissolution of the GIC cannot be called debris.“Different from HA/TTCP/PAA, GIC was water sensitive during setting phase, which was supported in the present study by a large sum of debris around its paste ball in PBS, and suggested in Earl and Ibbetson’s study by its easy damage in the early moist setting (Bodrumlu 2008)”. This reviewer does not understand the connection between Earl and Ibbetson’s study and the reference made to Bodrumlu. Please clarify.The figures have no numbers. See pages 19-23 of the pdf.Referee: 2Comments to AuthorMarch 24, 2012Title: Hydroxyapatite/Tetracalcium Phosphate/Polyacrylic Acid Cement:Chemical-Physical Properties and CytotoxicityMs. #: IEJ-12-00-00123GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS:Writing: Word use and grammar are at journal standards and need to be improved throughout.Organization: GoodOther: Avoid the use of +/- to express variation. The preferred method is mean (stdev). For example: 11.0 (0.8) min. The discussion is too long and over-zealous relative to the experimental data (see specifics below).CONTENTTitle1. OKAbstract1. The conclusion statement should be modified to say that it has low cytotoxicity. Biocompatibility was not adequately evaluated to make the current statement. Also should say it IS promising, not MAYBE promising. The latter makes no sense.Introduction1. OK, except for the writing inadequacies.Methods1. p. 5, ll. 22: It is unclear how the washout test was quantified. Please describe more thoroughly.2. p. 5, ll. 11: How do the authors know that the Et2O treatment didn't affect the biological properites of the the materials? It seems it would have been better3. p. 5, MTT assay. The 5 mg/mL concentration exposed to L929 for 4 h can be cytotoxic by itself. How did the authors control for this potential problem?Results1. Fig, p. 20 (pH). Statistical analyses need to be shown on this graph.2. Fig. p. 22 (cytotoxicity). These figures are too small for me to really evaluate thoroughly.3. Table 1: heading suggests that setting times are compare, but I believe this is an error. It seems that only CS is compared. Please check.Discussion/Conclusions1. First paragraph, p. 8 (setting). This paragraph seems speculative and askance of the experimental data for the most part. Please rewrite to relate more specifically to the XRD and IR data.2. Paragraph , p. 9 (washout). This paragraph also is speculative and the analysis exceeds the experimental data. The best that can be said here is that the HA/TTCP/PAA cement shows promised in terms of its relative wash-out resistance.3. Paragraph, p. 9/10 (pH). This text cannot be evaluated without statistical analysis of the data.4. Biocompatibility (p. 10). The authors have done 2 tests, but they are really measuring the same thing they way they were performed (both assess the cell mass). Thus the discussion claims are overstated in terms of the utility of these two tests. A moreconvincing story would be to evaluate the materials much longer-term (say after 4 weeksor longer). This should be mentioned in the discussion-- many individual have publishedresults with longer terms.5. Conclusions: are overstated. The authors should restrict their claims to say that the newmaterial shows promise relative to GIC and GPC. Little is possible to conclude beyondthat!References1. OKIllustrations (and Tables)Table 1: eliminate +/- signs and replace as suggested above. Transpose table to put thetimes along the top and the materials down the side. More effective.Fig 1: Helpful to vertically spread out the figure so that there is more space between tracesat different times.Fig 2: wavenumber labels are too crowded to bottom curve. Add space.Fig. 3: Add stats to graph. I suggest that this would be better plotted as a line graph (pH vs.time), and avoid all the different column fills and crowded legend, which are verydistracting.Fig. 4. Unclear what the top vs. bottom rows are without looking at caption. Please label.Fig. 5 ab. Separate these into separate figures. Make them bigger, please. Complete thegraph frame. Eliminate box around the legend. Space between numbers and units on thex-axes. (e.g. 48 h, not 48h). Use of lowercase letter labels would be more effective than allthe lines to show statistical differences.Date Sent:03-Apr-20121.3.2Understanding letter 2Main idea:____________________________________________________________ The author should①___________________________________________________________________②___________________________________________________________________③___________________________________________________________________④___________________________________________________________________nguage Focus：Politeness2.1 Highlight the polite expressions in the two letters.2.2 Make a response to the reviewer's comments in a polite way. The following sentence patterns are only for reference.We are very sorry for our negligence of ………We are very sorry for our incorrect writing ………It is really true as Reviewer suggested that……We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments.We have re-written this part according to the Reviewer’s suggestionAs Reviewer suggested that……Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, we have ……Special thanks to you for your good comments.1. The entire manuscript needs to be edited for proper use of the English language and syntax._____________________________________________________________________2.Check instructions for authors for the required journal format for referring to the published literature._____________________________________________________________________3.Avoid the use of +/- to express variation.__________________________________________________________________________________ 3.Writing project3.1The following is a cover letter template for submission of new manuscripts.Please write a cover letter for submission of your own research paper with this template.A cover letter template for submission of new manuscriptsDear Dr. Kravitz and Dr. Feldman,Paragraph 1: Overview (Article title, type, design, major finding)“We are pleased to submit our manuscript entitled: “XXX”, for consideration as a [journal article type – for instance, original article or systematic review]. [Include one sentence on study design, where relevant. Example follows]. “This study is a retrospective cohort study, comparing X outcomes of Y patients from Z health systems, from 19XX to 20XX. We found/illustrate [major finding or conclusion].”Paragraph 2: Context: Some authors will not need this paragraph.Ask yourself, what information would aid the editors in their decision-making process? Are there contextual factors that might inform the editors? Items for this paragraph might include potential conflicts, concurrent submissions from the same dataset, interestedgroups/history, and what this manuscript contributes to the field beyond work published, submitted, or in preparation by your group.Examples:∙Manuscripts from the same data set being submitted somewhere else, or you are planning to submit a related article elsewhere (all media types). This helps us think about your study in context.“This manuscript is one of three papers describing the major findings of our study on XXXX outcomes in HIV populations. One paper on biologic outcomes XXX is under review at XXX journal, while another qualitative paper describing the experience of men and women undergoing XXX treat ment is under preparation for submission to XXX. The XXX funder’s website has published an abstract with preliminary data from our annual report.”∙How work was developed (i.e. an organization encouraged project for a specific purpose].“This secondary data analysis is culled from a prior study of quality of XXX care [reference] . . . and was triggered by work I had done for the Department of Health. They wanted to put navigators in place to reduce delays in XXX process in state hospitals but had no recent data about actual times to treatment. When we looked at our data, we were surprised to find that women with Medicaid did not receive worse care than women with commercial or Medicare insurance...”Appendices that you have included for online publication only.“Given space restrictions, we have included our survey instruments and an extended set of blinded qualitative comments for inclusion as online appendices. Additionally, I’m enclosing a multi-media DVD that can be uploaded to the publisher’s website. The login and password for this curriculum are….”Paragraph 3: ImportanceWhy should this manuscript be published in ***? Why will our readers be interested? What is the potential impac t of your work (don’t overstate it)? What is the unique contribution of your work to what is known about this topic? This should be 1-4 sentences. All authors should include this information.Paragraph 4: Current submission and prior presentation disclosure“This manuscript has not been previously published and is not under consideration in the same or substantially similar form in any other peer-reviewed media.” If relevant: “We presented an earlier version of the manuscript as a poster/plenary/workshop at the [conference name] in [location], in 20XX.”Paragraph 5: Authorship and conflictsAcknowledge authorship and conflicts appropriately. From the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (): Authorship credit should be based on 1) substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; 2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and 3) final approval of the version to be published. Authors should meet conditions 1, 2, and 3.“All authors listed have contributed sufficiently to the project to be included as authors, and all those who are qualified to be authors are listed in the author byline. To the best of our knowledge, no conflict of interest, financial or other, exists. We have included acknowledgements, conflicts of interest, and funding sources after the discussion. [Where relevant, include your NIH study registry number.] Our NIH study registry number is XXX.”Sincerely,Corresponding authorContact information (title, group affiliation, physical address, email, phone, fax) Back-up contact (name, phone, email)Dear3.2Write a cover letter to reply to letter 2.3.3You submitted your paper "A NOVEL ROOT-END FILLING MATERIALBASED ON HYDROXYAPATITE, TETRACALCIUM PHOSPHATE AND POLYACRYLIC ACID "(ID: IEJ-12-00123) 2 month ago, but the status has been "with editor" for 1 month. Write an inquiry letter of the review.4.Final ChecklistThis checklist is for you to make sure that you are ready to submit the paper or make the revision. Tick the item if it is done.1 Does your submission cover letter include author information,declaration, and paper title?2 Is your research focus highlighted?3 Is your paper enclosed in the E-mail?4 Are you polite in cover letter writing?5 Do you understand the editor's decision?6 Do you understand details of reviewers' suggestions?7 Do you make point-to-point revision to your paper?8 Are you polite in response to the reviewer's comments, even if you donot agree with them?。
