At selective journals an editor decides in minutes whether to send a paper to review. The cover letter is your only direct pitch: why this journal's readers need this result now. It does not summarize the abstract.
Before writing
Collect: the journal's scope/aims statement and article type; the main finding in one sentence with its key number; 1-3 recent papers in this journal your work builds on or challenges; required declarations (see the journal's guide).
Structure (one page)
- Opening: manuscript title, article type, journal. One sentence.
- The finding and why it matters, 2-4 sentences: the problem, what you found (with the key number), and what it changes. Written for a smart non-specialist editor.
- Why this journal: connect to the journal's readership and scope, and cite recent papers it published if you extend or overturn them. Avoid flattery.
- What is new vs. prior work: one or two sentences, concrete (larger cohort, first causal evidence, 10× faster, new mechanism).
- Declarations the journal asks for: not under consideration elsewhere, all authors approved, preprint server and DOI if posted, competing interests, related manuscripts under review, data availability.
- Reviewers: suggested reviewers (name, institution, email, expertise, no conflicts: not recent co-authors or same institution). Opposed reviewers with a brief, professional reason.
- Sign-off by the corresponding author with contact details.
Template
Dear Dr. [Editor surname],
We submit our manuscript "[Title]" for consideration as a [Article type] in [Journal].
[Problem in one sentence]. Here we show that [main finding with key number], using [approach
and scale]. This [resolves / overturns / enables] [specific consequence].
This work will interest [Journal]'s readers in [fields] because [reason]. It builds on
[Author et al., Journal, Year], which [what they showed], by [what you add].
The manuscript has not been published and is not under consideration elsewhere. All authors
approved the submission. A preprint is available at [server, DOI]. The authors declare [no
competing interests / the interests listed in the manuscript].
Suggested reviewers: [Name, Institution, email: expertise]. [...]
We request that [Name] not review this manuscript due to [brief professional reason].
Sincerely,
[Name, affiliation, email, ORCID]
Variants
- Presubmission inquiry (Nature Portfolio, PLOS Biology, Cell Press and others): abstract + ~200-word pitch focused on significance. The editor answers "would consider" or "not suitable".
- Transfer after rejection: mention the previous journal and decision. If reviews transfer, summarize how you addressed them.
- Resubmission after reject-and-resubmit: list the main changes and link to the full response
to reviewers (see
rebuttal-and-response-to-reviewers). - Appeal: only for clear reviewer error or misunderstanding of central points. Be factual, brief and specific, and offer additional evidence.
Don'ts
- Don't repeat the abstract, or use hype ("groundbreaking", "paradigm-shifting").
- Don't overclaim beyond the manuscript or bury required declarations.
- Don't suggest reviewers with conflicts, or friends, or fabricated contacts. This is research misconduct.
- Don't exceed one page unless the journal asks for more.
Related skills
abstract-and-title, rebuttal-and-response-to-reviewers, reproducibility-statement,
journal-format skills (nature-portfolio, science-aaas, cell-press, plos, ...), venue-templates.