cover letter to editor after revision

• Research Process
• Manuscript Preparation
• Manuscript Review
• Publication Process
• Publication Recognition
• Language Editing Services
• Translation Services

How to Write a Cover Letter for Your Manuscript? Here are the Tips and Examples

• 3 minute read

Table of Contents

A cover letter is often the first thing an editor reads when reviewing your submission. As your first pitch to the editor, the cover letter helps them gauge the suitability of your manuscript for publication in their journal. Imagine your work shaping the future of your field, gathering citations, and sparking discussions. A powerful cover letter is thus the first step to making that vision into a reality.   

In this article, we will guide you through the process of writing an effective cover letter and explain how you can get it right every time with examples. First, let us get started with the basics!  

Getting the Basics Right  

When writing a cover letter, it is crucial to address the editor by their correct and complete name¹ . If there are multiple co-editors, you can address your letter to the right person, based on their specialization or designated responsibilities. If unsure, it is okay to go with a more general salutation, such as “Dear Editors”¹ .   

Presenting your Research  

Provide a clear and concise title for your submission and specify whether it is an article, communication, review, perspective, or a manuscript belonging to some other category. If the journal guideline recommends, consider including a list of all authors in the manuscript.   

After covering the preliminary information, briefly explain your paper’s central theme or focus to give the editor an idea of its contents. Ensure this stays a brief outline, without going into too much detail.   

Conveying the Importance of Your Work  

How you communicate the impact of your work can make or break your cover letter. To make a strong impression on the editor, articulate the significance of your research clearly, emphasizing its relevance to the field. Additionally, show how your work aligns with the journal’s scope and mission.  

Including a Formal Declaration  

Some journals require a set of declarations from you to ensure that your manuscript adheres to its ethical code and the larger ethical standards of scientific publishing. Here are the required declarations in a cover letter:  

• Originality of work:  
• Confirm that your work is original and has not been published elsewhere. This tells the editor your research is unique.  
• Conflict of interest statement:  
• Be clear about any potential conflicts of interest. This includes any personal, financial, or professional connections that might affect your research.  
• Funding source (if applicable):  
• Tell where your research funding came from, if any. This includes any support or grants from organizations.   

Including Personal Suggestions for Reviewers on a Separate Page (optional)  

If there is no part of the submission process that collects researcher suggestions for reviewers, and there are special requests from the researcher for reviewers (e.g., recommending the inclusion or suggesting the exclusion of a specific reviewer, etc.), you may also make a note about this in the cover letter.  

Combining these five points, here is a good example of a cover letter for researchers’ reference:  

(This image is intended to demonstrate the norms of formatting and tone of expression in a cover letter, it is to be used only by the researcher as a reference in writing² .)  

Conclusion  

A strong cover letter can go a long way in ensuring success for researchers looking to publish their manuscripts! Your cover letter is the opening act, setting the stage for how editors perceive your manuscript. So, look at it not as just another formality but as a crucial opportunity to make a strong impression.   

Understanding what to include, what is optional, and what is best left unsaid can be tricky. That is where our team of experts at Elsevier Language Services can step in. We will provide personalized recommendations and expert guidance to help you craft a cover letter that perfectly complements your manuscript. Reach out to us today to make a great first impression and embark on a successful academic journey!  

Reference  

• Nicholas, D. (2019). How to choose a journal and write a cover letter. Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia, 13(5), 35. https://doi.org/10.4103/sja.sja_691_18  
• Loyola University Chicago. (n.d.). JCSHESA Sample Cover Letter. https://ecommons.luc.edu/jcshesa/cover_letter_template.pdf  

Page-Turner Articles are More Than Just Good Arguments: Be Mindful of Tone and Structure!

Submission 101: What format should be used for academic papers?

You may also like.

Publishing Biomedical Research: What Rules Should You Follow?

Writing an Effective Cover Letter for Manuscript Resubmission

Journal Acceptance Rates: Everything You Need to Know

Research Data Storage and Retention

How to Find and Select Reviewers for Journal Articles

How to Request the Addition of an Extra Author Before Publication

Paper Rejection: Common Reasons

How to Write a Journal Article from a Thesis

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.13(1); 2019 Jan

Tips for Responding to Reviewers’ Comments–from an Editor’s or Reviewer’s Points of View

Grace lai-hung wong.

1 Institute of Digestive Disease, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China

2 Department of Medicine and Therapeutics, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China

3 State Key Laboratory of Digestive Disease, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China

Peer review is the indispensable part of publishing a scientific paper, in particulars in high-impact journals. This is to ensure the quality, originality and accuracy of the work submitted to the journals. 1 The next immediate step after peer review, if the authors are lucky enough, is to revise the manuscript according to editors’ and reviewers’ comments. 2 This is an important step as the valuable and insightful comments from the editors and reviewers, who are often the experts in the field, would improve the manuscript substantially. These comments are vital means of communication between the authors and reviewers. Most journals would invite at least two to three reviewers, and occasionally even up to six reviewers. However, the brutal reality is that the more reviewers being invited, the higher the likelihood of getting some harsh, conflicting comments on the manuscript.

Even majority of the revised manuscripts will get accepted by the journals, it is not uncommon to encounter rejection after first, second, or rarely third round of revision. 3 In order to minimize the chance of this “mishap”–rejection after revision, the authors should try to address the comments as complete as possible. There is never any hard-and-fast rules leading to a secured, guaranteed acceptance after revision. The following is the discussion on some general principles and sharing from personal experience, be it good or bad one, in responding reviewers’ comments.

HOW LIKELY IS MY PAPER BEING ACCEPTED AFTER REVISION?

The first sign of the probability of being accepted (and the reverse, rejected) after revision is the categories of decision–“Accept,” “Accept after Revision/Minor Revision,” “Reject with Hope/Major revision,” or “Reject.” The most challenging category is likely the “Reject with Hope/Major revision” ( Table 1 ). These sentences allow rooms for the editors and reviewers to reserve the right of rejecting the papers even after revision.

Common Sentences Included in the Decision E-mails from Journal Editors

HOW TO START ADDRESSING THE REVIEWERS–DIGEST THEIR COMMENTS

The key reason of rejection after revision is the major comments have not been adequately addressed. 3 Hence digesting the reviewers’ comments, preferably over a few days would be helpful. 3 One approach suggested for digesting the reviewers’ comments involves reading the reviews once, putting it aside for a couple of days, followed by reading the reviews again, and finally discussing the reviews with the co-authors to create the plan of response.

It is a must to address all the comments; yet addressing does not always mean changing the manuscript. 4 The key authors (most often first, second and corresponding authors) should discuss and decide what to change, and what to defend. Changing according to the comments is often the easiest route, as this demonstrates openness to suggestions. Nonetheless, disagreement is also fine, or it is indeed part of the revision process. Just that it would be important that the authors can back it up and support with data and facts. Occasionally the reviewers’ comments may be partial. It would be nice and decent to have a complete, solid and polite rebuttal to the editor. Always write in such a manner that the response can be forwarded to the reviewers, which often makes the life of editors easier by copying and pasting the responses in their decision e-mails.

MATERIALS TO BE PREPARED FOR RESUBMISSION

1. cover letter/letter to the editor.

Letter to the editor summarizing the changes and, if necessary, defending the manuscript, should be written towards the end, right before the resubmission. 3 Instead letters to each of the reviewers, or a combined point-by-point response to address all reviewers’ comments should be the first thing to prepare.

2. Point-by-point response/Letter to the reviewers

The point-by-point response is the most important part of the resubmission. 3 This should always be the first thing to be prepared. It should start by thanking the reviewers for their time spent on the review, and the insightful, constructive comments which are going to improve the manuscript. Then, add a short summary of key changes. The key part would be a specific, dialogue-type list of comments and responses. 5 For any changes, the authors should indicate the location (page and paragraph numbers) in the new version of manuscript file. For any defenses, try our best to be polite and write professionally ( Table 2 ). 3

Good and Bad Sentence Starters for Responding Reviewers’ Comments

The authors may choose to respond to the easy changes first, which include rewording, adding extra references, an extra paragraph, table, or figure, or an appendix. 3 All these easy changes should be all addressed accordingly. The authors should always change technical errors as it is the reviewer’s job to find these out. Errors in references should always be fixed as skilled reviewers know the history better than newer authors; experts in the field know the correct papers in the correct order. Unfortunately, life is not always that easy. There are often more difficult changes needed, namely modifying the central hypothesis and main algorithm, or even redoing an experiment. 1 It is particularly essential to change parts which are have been mentioned by multiple reviewers, as repeated comments often stand out to the editor.

3. Letter to the typesetter

Very occasionally, if the authors have some specific formatting issue about the manuscript, a letter to the typesetter would be useful. More often this would be prepared at the time the manuscript is accepted and a proof is being prepared.

REVISING THE MANUSCRIPT

1. introduction.

To our surprise, the introduction of a scientific manuscript is often too long. 3 Unlike review article, we expect a precise and concise introduction. The reviewers often advise to trim the introduction focusing on the study aim and hypothesis. Updated and relevant references are often suggested by the reviewers; the authors essentially should include all these references in the revised manuscript.

Appropriate and accurate methodology is the foundation of a scientific manuscript warranting publication. 3 The reviewers can be very critical on this part, such that quite often the changes would involve further data collection, new analysis, and some more experiments. Occasionally, things have been performed appropriate, just that they have not been clearly described in this section. If the further details requested by the reviewers lead to exceeding the word limit, part of this section may be moved to Supplementary Materials.

Any changes of this part are closely linked with the comments on Method section. Instead of repeating the data which the tables and figures have already presented, reviewers may remove some fine prints. Focusing on the key features of the cohorts, the primary and some important secondary endpoints would be preferred.

4. Discussion

This is often the most expanded part after revision. 5 Many critics, in particulars the limitations raised by the reviewers, should be further addressed in the Discussion. The new findings of the study, especially when they are new or different from current knowledge, should be compared and contrast with existing literature.

5. References

With the wide availability of reference manager software, the inconsistency in the format of references is rarely seen nowadays. Instead more often the reviewers (as well as the editors) may ask for some new references to replace to older ones, or adding some relevant studies. Including all suggested new references should be the rule rather than exception.

6. Tables & Figures

As many readers (as well as reviewers) prefer to read the tables and figures rather than the narrative description of results, all tables and figures should be able to stand alone with all abbreviations spelled out in the footnote. Low resolution of figures is another common critic which should be avoided by including high-resolution figures at the first round of submission. 3

WHY ME? REJECTION AFTER REVISION

It is frustrating to receive such an email from the editorial office after the authors have spent a lot of time and effort on revising the manuscript:

It is quite often that some of the reviewers wanted to reject the paper at the first round of review, but the handing editor out like to give a chance to revise it. The reviewers may find that unacceptable to have some key methodological issues unresolved in the revised manuscript. Another common weakness would be inconsistent findings between first and second version. 3 Hence the reviewers may give the following comments at the second review:

As a matter of fact, there is always a proportion of manuscripts not accepted after revision. It happens uncommonly but can be up to 15% in some high-impact journals.

Hence if we do not want our manuscript belong to part of this proportion, we should try our best to address all reviewers’ comments. The authors should always cross-check and proofread the revised manuscript for consistency, grammar and spelling. If there are some key methodological issues that cannot be resolved, the authors should consider either repeat the whole study by the proposed methodology, or to admit this is something the authors cannot resolved in the current study such that future studies are warranted. After all, if the reviewers find the latter response not acceptable, there is always chance to submit the manuscript to another journal.

PERSEVERANCE IS THE KEY TO SUCCESS

Editors would be satisfied only if the reviewers are satisfied, as they heavily count on reviewers’ expertise to make the final decision. The most important tip would be to do whatever the reviewers have suggested if it is possible. From authors’ points of view, getting a manuscript accepted after revision can be a tedious process sometimes if there are many challenging comments to be addressed. Yet not to avoid all the troubles to make the changes would be crucial. Looking on the bright side, it is a process to improve the manuscript. Such a positive feedback is often rewarding. Getting the manuscript finally accepted after revisions, be it in the same journal or in other journals means that the effort is finally paid off. So do not give up, be perseverant. I am sure the manuscript will find a good home for publication. Good lucky to everyone who are revising, or going to revise the manuscript.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Grace Wong has served as the Associate Editor of Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics since February 2017, the Editorial Board Member of 13 journals, the reviewer for 78 journals (including British Medical Journal , Lancet Infectious Disease , Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology , Gastroenterology , Gut , Hepatology , Journal of Hepatology , etc.), and the advisory committee member for Gilead. She has also served as a speaker for Abbott, Abbvie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Echosens, Furui, Gilead, Janssen, and Roche.

• Office of Undergraduate Research
• Current Students
• Online Only Students
• Faculty & Staff
• Parents & Family
• Alumni & Friends
• Community & Business
• Student Life
• Student Assistants
• Latest News
• What is Research
• Get Started
• First-Year Scholars Program
• Current Research Projects
• Involvement Opportunities
• Undergraduate Research Space
• About to Graduate?
• Find Undergraduate Researchers
• Request a Classroom Visit
• Presenting and Publishing
• Workshops and Training
• Office of Research

Writing a Cover Letter and Response to Reviewers

Explore the possibilities.

The main purpose of your response to reviewers is to tell the editors how you have revised your manuscript since your initial submission.   You should address each suggested revision made by the reviewers and explain how you have chosen to respond.  The document should be formatted in such a way that the editors can easily track changes made to your manuscript.  It should be organized by reviewer (e.g., Reviewer 1, Reviewer 2) and address the reviews point-by-point.  Comments and responses should be clearly distinguishable.

For example:

1.Your manuscript contains grammatical errors.  For example, on page 3, you used “their” when you should  have used “there.”

We have thoroughly proofread the manuscript and corrected all grammatical errors.

2. The second paragraph of your introduction needs more details about findings by Owl and colleagues (2017).  Be sure to explain their operational definition of “school spirit.”

We agree with Reviewer 1’s assessment of this paragraph and have decided to expand upon it.  We have provided a more detailed summary of Owl and colleagues’ findings, including the operational definition they used for “school spirit” for their study.

1. On pages 1 and 6, you did not include the year of publication in an in-text citation.

We have included years of publication as they correspond to the sources listed on the references page.

2. Two of the sources in your references lack a hanging indentation.

This error has been corrected; all sources are correctly formatted with hanging indentations.

Unless otherwise specified in the email your received from the editors, you may choose whether or not to make any suggested changes.  However, even if you do not change something that has been suggested, you must still address the suggestion in your response, and you must provide a compelling argument for your decision.

1. “Theatre” should be spelled “theater” because “theatre” is not the standard American English spelling.  This is a repeating occurrence.

While Reviewer 1 is correct that most Americans do spell the word “theater,” scholars in my field would accept the use of “theatre” in the context in which I use it in this manuscript.  Thus, I have chosen not to change this spelling.

Additionally, you should:

• Use a professional letter format (i.e., address the correct audience, state your purpose, and be signed by the author(s) of the manuscript) for your cover letter.
• Use a professional tone (i.e., use polite wording throughout the cover letter and response to reviewers, including when making your case for choosing not to follow a reviewer’s suggestion).
• Make sure you have made any changes both within the manuscript AND described them within your response.
• Make all changes and resubmit your manuscript, cover letter, and response to reviewers within the time frame allotted by the editors.

Contact Info

Kennesaw Campus 1000 Chastain Road Kennesaw, GA 30144

Marietta Campus 1100 South Marietta Pkwy Marietta, GA 30060

Campus Maps

Phone 470-KSU-INFO (470-578-4636)

kennesaw.edu/info

Media Resources

Resources For

Related Links

• Financial Aid
• Degrees, Majors & Programs
• Job Opportunities
• Campus Security
• Global Education
• Sustainability
• Accessibility

470-KSU-INFO (470-578-4636)

© 2024 Kennesaw State University. All Rights Reserved.

• Privacy Statement
• Accreditation
• Emergency Information
• Report a Concern
• Open Records
• Human Trafficking Notice

• Insights blog

How to write a cover letter for journal submission

Download our cover letter template.

When you submit your article to a journal, you often need to include a cover letter. This is a great opportunity to highlight to the journal editor what makes your research new and important. The cover letter should explain why your work is perfect for their journal and why it will be of interest to the journal’s readers.

When writing for publication, a well-written cover letter can help your paper reach the next stage of the manuscript submission process – being sent out for  peer review . So it’s worth spending time thinking about how to write a cover letter to the journal editor, to make sure it’s going to be effective.

To help you, we’ve put together a guide to explain how to write a cover letter for journal article submission. You will receive cover letter instructions of what you should include and what you shouldn’t, and a word template cover letter.

Ready to submit?

Taylor & Francis Editing services has a high quality premium editing package to make you feel confident to submit.

Customized cover letter

Feedback on original writing

Complete language check

Extensive revisions.

What should my cover letter include?

Before you start to write, please check the  instructions for authors  (IFAs) of your chosen journal, as not all journals will require one. You should also check the IFAs for any journal specific information on what to include. This may include a list of relevant articles written by you or your co-authors that have been or are currently being considered for publication in other journals.

Key points to include in your letter to the editor:

Editor’s name (you can usually find this on the journal page on  Taylor & Francis Online ).

Your manuscript’s title.

Name of the journal you are submitting to.

Statement that your paper has not been previously published and is not currently under consideration by another journal.

Brief description of the research you are reporting in your paper, why it is important, and why you think the readers of the journal would be interested in it.

Contact information for you and any  co-authors .

Confirmation that you have no  competing interests  to disclose.

Things to avoid:

Don’t copy your abstract into your cover letter, instead explain in your own words the significance of the work, the problem that is being addressed, and why the manuscript belongs in the journal.

Don’t use too much jargon or too many acronyms, keep language straightforward and easy to read.

Avoid too much detail – keep your cover letter to a maximum of one page, as an introduction and brief overview.

Avoid any spelling and grammar errors and ensure your letter is thoroughly proofed before submitting.

Click to enlarge your PDF on key information to include in your cover letter .

Cover letter template

If you need further help to write a cover letter for a journal, you can download and use our sample template as a guide.

You might find that the submission system for your chosen journal requires your cover letter to be submitted into a text box rather than as a separate document, but it is still a good idea to write a draft first to make sure you have included everything.

Always make sure to check the journal’s  instructions for authors  for any specific additional information to include.

Submission ready

Use our submission checklist  to make sure you’ve included everything you need to.

If you need more guidance, take a look at our other  information and resources to help you make your submission .

Rapid constructive feedback

Consider the Taylor & Francis Rapid Technical Review service to help you meet your deadline, through peer-review-like comments on your manuscript.

Related resources

Journal submission support

Guide to improve your submission experience

Article submission checklist

Publishing tips, direct to your inbox

Expert tips and guidance on getting published and maximizing the impact of your research. Register now for weekly insights direct to your inbox.

• Affiliate Program

• UNITED STATES
• 台灣 (TAIWAN)
• TÜRKIYE (TURKEY)
• Academic Editing Services
• - Research Paper
• - Journal Manuscript
• - Dissertation
• - College & University Assignments
• Admissions Editing Services
• - Application Essay
• - Personal Statement
• - Recommendation Letter
• - Cover Letter
• - CV/Resume
• Business Editing Services
• - Business Documents
• - Report & Brochure
• - Website & Blog
• Writer Editing Services
• - Script & Screenplay
• Our Editors
• Client Reviews
• Editing & Proofreading Prices
• Wordvice Points
• Partner Discount
• Plagiarism Checker
• APA Citation Generator
• MLA Citation Generator
• Chicago Citation Generator
• Vancouver Citation Generator
• - APA Style
• - MLA Style
• - Chicago Style
• - Vancouver Style
• Writing & Editing Guide
• Academic Resources
• Admissions Resources

How to Write a Cover Letter for Journal Submission

If you’re looking for solid advice on how to write a strong journal submission cover letter that will convince journal editors to review your research paper, then look no further! We know that cover letters  can  impact an editor’s decision to consider your research paper further.

This guide aims to explain (1) why you should care about writing a powerful cover letter, (2) what you should include in it, and (3) how you should structure it. The last segment will include a free downloadable submission cover letter template with detailed how-to explanations and some useful phrases. Finally, be sure to get journal manuscript editing , cover letter editing , and other academic editing services by Wordvice’s professional editors to ensure that you convey an academic style and error-free text, along with including all of the most important content.

Why does a good cover letter matter?

While your research paper’s role is to prove the merits of your research, a strong introductory cover letter is your opportunity to highlight the significance of your research and “sell” its concept to journal editors.

While your research paper’s role is to prove the merits of your research, a strong introductory cover letter is your opportunity to highlight the significance of your research and “sell” its concept to journal editors.

Sadly, we must admit that part of the decision-making process of whether to accept a manuscript is based on a business model. Editors must select articles that will interest their readers. In other words, your paper, if published, must make money . When it’s not quite clear how your research paper might generate interest based on its title and content alone (for example, if your paper is too technical for most editors to appreciate), your cover letter is the one opportunity you will get to convince the editors that your work is worth further review.

In addition to economic factors, many editors use the cover letter to screen whether authors can follow basic instructions . For example, if a journal’s guide for authors states that you must include disclosures, potential reviewers, and statements regarding ethical practices, failure to include these items might lead to the automatic rejection of your article, even if your research is the most progressive project on the planet! By failing to follow directions, you raise a red flag that you may be careless, and if you’re not attentive to the details of a cover letter, editors might wonder about the quality and thoroughness of your research. This is not the impression you want to give editors!

What to Include in a Cover Letter for a Journal Submission

We can’t stress this enough: Follow your target journal’s instructions for authors ! No matter what other advice you read in the vast webosphere, make sure you prioritize the information requested by the editors of the journal you are submitting to. As we explained above, failure to include required statements will lead to an automatic “ desk rejection ”.

With that said, below is a list of the most common elements you must include in your cover letter and what information you should NOT include:

Essential information:

• Editor’s name (when known)
• Name of the journal to which you are submitting
• Your manuscript’s title
• Article type (review, research, case study, etc.)
• Submission date
• Brief background of your study and the research question you sought to answer
• Brief overview of methodology used
• Principle findings and significance to scientific community (how your research advances our understanding of a concept)
• Corresponding author contact information
• Statement that your paper has not been previously published and is not currently under consideration by another journal and that all authors have approved of and have agreed to submit the manuscript to this journal

Other commonly requested information:

• Short list of similar articles previously published by the target journal
• List of relevant works by you or your co-authors that have been previously published or are under consideration by other journals. You can include copies of those works.
• Mention of any prior discussions with editor(s) (for example, if you discussed the topic with an editor at a conference)
• Technical specialties required to evaluate your paper
• Potential reviewers and their contact information
• If needed, reviewers to exclude (this information is most likely also requested elsewhere in online submissions forms)

Other disclosures/statements required by the journal (e.g., compliance with ethical standards, conflicts of interest , agreement to terms of submission, copyright sign-over, etc.)

What you should NOT do:

• Don’t use too much jargon or include too many acronyms.
• Don’t over-embellish your findings or their significance. Avoid words such as “novel,” “first ever,” and “paradigm-changing.” These types of statements show bias and will make the editor question your ability to assess your work’s merits objectively.
• Don’t name-drop. Listing people who might endorse your paper and discussing authors’ reputations do not interest editors. They want to know if your content fits their criteria, so focus solely on addressing that point.
• Don’t write a novel. While you want to adequately explain your work and sell its concept to editors, keep your cover letter to a maximum of one page. The letter is only meant to be an introduction and brief overview.
• Avoid humor . As much as we want to grab the editors’ attention, there are too many ways in which humor can go wrong!

How to Structure a Cover Letter

You should use formal language in your cover letter. Since most submissions are delivered electronically, the template below is in a modified e-mail format. However, if you send your cover letter on letterhead (PDF or hard copy by mail), move your contact information to the upper-left corner of the page unless you use pre-printed letterhead, in which case your contact information should be centered at the top of the letter.

ANNOTATED TEMPLATE Journal Submissions Cover Letter

[Journal Editor’s First and Last Name][, Graduate Degree (if any)] TIP: It’s customary to include any graduate degrees in the addressee’s name. e.g.,  John Smith, MD or Carolyn Daniels, MPH [Title] e.g.,  Editor-in-Chief, Managing Editor, Co-Editors-in-Chief [Journal Name] [Journal Address] [Submission Date: Month Day, Year]

Dear Dr./Mr./Ms. [Editor’s last name]:

TIP: Where the editor’s name is not known, use the relevant title employed by the journal, such as “Dear Managing Editor:” or “Dear Editor-in-Chief:”. Using a person’s name is best, however.

TIP: Use “Ms.” and never “Mrs.” or “Miss” in formal business letters.

TIP:  Never   use “Dear Sirs:” or any similar expression. Many editors will find this insulting, especially given that many of them are female!

[Para.1: 2–3 sentences]  I am writing to submit our manuscript entitled, [“Title”] for consideration as a [Journal Name][Article Type]. [One to two sentence “pitch” that summarizes the study design, where applicable, your research question, your major findings, and the conclusion.]

e.g.,  I am writing to submit our manuscript entitled, “X Marks the Spot” for consideration as an  Awesome Science Journal  research article. We examined the efficacy of using X factors as indicators for depression in Y subjects in Z regions through a 12-month prospective cohort study and can confirm that monitoring the levels of X is critical to identifying the onset of depression, regardless of geographical influences.

TIP: Useful phrases to discuss your findings and conclusion include:

• Our findings confirm that…
• We have determined that…
• Our results suggest…
• We found that…
• We illustrate…
• Our findings reveal…
• Our study clarifies…
• Our research corroborates…
• Our results establish…
• Our work substantiates…

[Para. 2: 2–5 sentences]  Given that [context that prompted your research], we believe that the findings presented in our paper will appeal to the [Reader Profile] who subscribe to [Journal Name]. Our findings will allow your readers to [identify the aspects of the journal’s  Aim and Scope  that align with your paper].

TIP: Identify the journal’s typical audience and how those people can utilize your research to expand their understanding of a topic. For example, if many of your target journal’s readers are interested in the public policy implications of various research studies, you may wish to discuss how your conclusions can help your peers to develop stronger policies that more effectively address public concerns.

TIP: Include context about why this research question had to be addressed.

e.g.,  “Given the struggle policymakers have had to define proper criteria to diagnose the onset of depression in teenagers, we felt compelled to identify a cost-effective and universal methodology that local school administrators can use to screen students.”

TIP: If your paper was prompted by prior research, state this. For example, “After initially researching X, Y approached us to conduct a follow-up study that examined Z. While pursuing this project, we discovered [some new understanding that made you decide the information needed to be shared with your peers via publication.]”

e.g.,  Given the alarming increase in depression rates among teenagers and the lack of any uniform practical tests for screening students, we believe that the findings presented in our paper will appeal to education policymakers who subscribe to  The Journal of Education . Although prior research has identified a few methods that could be used in depression screening, such as X and Y, the applications developed from those findings have been cost-prohibitive and difficult to administer on a national level. Thus, our findings will allow your readers to understand the factors involved in identifying the onset of depression in teenagers better and develop more cost-effective screening procedures that can be employed nationally. In so doing, we hope that our research advances the toolset needed to combat the concerns preoccupying the minds of many school administrators.

[Para 3: Similar works]  “This manuscript expands on the prior research conducted and published by [Authors] in [Journal Name]” or “This paper [examines a different aspect of]/ [takes a different approach to] the issues explored in the following papers also published by [Journal Name].”

TIP: You should mention similar studies recently published by your target journal, if any, but list no more than five. If you only want to mention one article, replace the preceding sentence with “This paper [examines a different aspect of]/ [takes a different approach to] the issues explored by [Authors] in [Article Title], also published by [Journal Name] on [DATE].”

[Para. 4: Additional statements often required]  Each of the authors confirms that this manuscript has not been previously published and is not currently under consideration by any other journal. Additionally, all of the authors have approved the contents of this paper and have agreed to the [Journal Name]’s submission policies.

TIP: If you have previously publicly shared some form or part of your research elsewhere, state so. For example, you can say, “We have presented a subset of our findings [at Event]/ [as a Type of Publication Medium] in [Location] in [Year].”

e.g.,  We have since expanded the scope of our research to contemplate international feasibility and acquired additional data that has helped us to develop a new understanding of geographical influences.

[Para. 5: Potential Reviewers]  Should you select our manuscript for peer review, we would like to suggest the following potential reviewers/referees because they would have the requisite background to evaluate our findings and interpretation objectively.

• [Name, institution, email, expertise]

To the best of our knowledge, none of the above-suggested persons have any conflict of interest, financial or otherwise.

TIP: Include 3–5 reviewers since it is likely that the journal will use at least one of your suggestions.

TIP: Use whichever term (“reviewer” or “referee”) your target journal uses. Paying close attention to a journal’s terminology is a sign that you have properly researched the journal and have prepared!

[Para. 6: Frequently requested additional information]  Each named author has substantially contributed to conducting the underlying research and drafting this manuscript. Additionally, to the best of our knowledge, the named authors have no conflict of interest, financial or otherwise.

[Your Name]

Corresponding Author Institution Title Institution/Affiliation Name [Institution Address] [Your e-mail address] [Tel: (include relevant country/area code)] [Fax: (include relevant country/area code)]

Additional Contact [should the corresponding author not be available] Institution Title Institution/Affiliation Name [Institution Address] [Your e-mail address] [Tel: (include relevant country/area code)] [Fax: (include relevant country/area code)]

Quick Cover Letter Checklist Before Submission

• Set the font to Arial or Times New Roman, size 12 point.
• Single-space all text.
• Use one line space between body paragraphs.
• Do not indent paragraphs.
• Keep all text left justified.
• Use spelling and grammar check software. If needed, use a proofreading service or cover letter editing service  such as Wordvice to review your letter for clarity and concision.
• Double-check the editor’s name. Call the journal to confirm if necessary.

Unfortunately we don't fully support your browser. If you have the option to, please upgrade to a newer version or use Mozilla Firefox , Microsoft Edge , Google Chrome , or Safari 14 or newer. If you are unable to, and need support, please send us your feedback .

We'd appreciate your feedback. Tell us what you think! opens in new tab/window

How to respond to reviewer comments – the CALM way

April 3, 2019 | 5 min read

By Catherine Carnovale

Revising your manuscript doesn’t have to be stressful

More than likely, you’ve had one eye trained on your inbox for weeks, willing an acceptance notice to come sailing in. Your submission was brilliant – well written, novel – one could say…perfect! You went over every data point, checked every figure and poured hours into polishing the text before submission.

The revise and resubmit notice comes as a complete shock! How could the reviewers not love your brilliant data commentary? Maybe they just didn’t understand it…after all, it was a totally ingenious interpretation.

This is a normal reaction for a fledgling researcher. Supervisors are often so busy that the process of submission and revision is something of a mystery when starting out. Receiving criticism and defending your research takes practice. It also requires a “CALM” approach.

Here are four simple tips to help you respond to reviewers’ comments and fast track your paper for a positive decision!

C:  Comprehend  (keep your cool!)

When the decision letter arrives, read over the comments…Take time to understand the reviewers’ feedback and consider what they are asking you to do. You will be given a time frame for the revisions so don’t succumb to the pressure to reply immediately.

While you should be mindful to return your revisions with a timely response, allow yourself a while to process the comments before looking over them again the following day. By letting some time pass, you give yourself the opportunity to let your emotions subside, important for preventing an impulsive and heated response, which you would undoubtedly regret later.

A:  Answer  (amend or advocate!)

One of the functions of peer review is to encourage you - the author - to deliver stronger, more robust research. Think of the process as an opportunity to improve your manuscript, which will increase the likelihood that it will be useful to other researchers. After allowing yourself a day to process the comments, switch gears into “answer mode”! This is the time to trust your natural analytical processing skills.

Keep in mind that the editor of a journal will receive your comments and may forward them on to reviewers. Your responses should be polite and objective, balancing the line between being concise and complete. There is no space for ego in your response. Start by thanking the reviewers for identifying the weaknesses in your paper and providing you the opportunity to strengthen your research prior to publication.

The art of well-mannered rebuttal can be difficult to grasp but there is nothing inherently wrong about disagreeing on some of the reviewers’ points. Postulate your counter argument with a polite and sound response backed up with evidence to support your position.

L:  List  (make a list…check it twice!)

One of the best ways to ensure that you cover all the reviewers’ comments is to create a list. Reviewers shouldn’t have to re-read your whole manuscript again, combing it for your changes.

Organize your responses by listing each of the reviewers’ comments and addressing each one separately below. Resist the trap of lazy responses like “answered” or “fixed in manuscript”. Be clear about how you responded (copy and paste the updated text below the reviewers’ comments) and state where this fits into the manuscript (with a page and line number). This practice allows the editor to easily see that you have taken all the reviewers’ comments on board and evaluate your response to each of their concerns.

M:  Mindful  (make it easy for the editor – they will appreciate it!)

Editors are busy people, so be mindful of this! Being organized when you resubmit your manuscript allows the revision process to run smoothly and efficiently. Your resubmission should contain four things:

Cover letter

A brief and polite cover letter addressed to the editor should accompany your resubmission. Generally written by the corresponding author, your cover letter should include your manuscript details and a brief statement to note the resubmission. A sincere thanks to the editor for the opportunity to improve and resubmit your manuscript is also a nice touch.

List of responses

Include the list that you created with each of the reviewers’ comments and your response. This list not only paints you as an organized, methodical researcher, but also makes it easier for the editor to reassess your manuscript.

Track changes document

Return your revised manuscript with your revisions highlighted. Use a tool like Microsoft Word’s “track changes” feature (or something similar) to illustrate how and where your revised manuscript has been changed. This is the easiest way to show the editor that you have indeed made all the changes you listed!

Clean version

Submit a “clean” version of your manuscript to show your work in its final form. This file is usually uploaded as the “manuscript” file and allows the editor to read your work without the distraction of marked-up detail, ensuring that it is ready for production.

Revising your manuscript doesn’t have to be stressful. If you remember to stay “CALM” and keep your cool, you will give yourself the best chance of having your work published. Good luck!

Contributor

Catherine Carnovale

Authors' update - keeping journal authors in touch with industry developments, support and training.

• Translation

How to write an effective Revisions Letter

By charlesworth author services.

• Charlesworth Author Services
• 16 December, 2021

A revisions letter is the letter you write to the editor of a journal to which you have submitted a paper for possible publication .

Purpose of a revisions letter

The purpose of the revisions letter is to convince the editor that you have adequately revised the original manuscript to address all the comments made by its peer reviewers. The ideal outcome of resubmitting your revised manuscript and submitting a good revisions letter is that your article is taken up for further processing by the journal – copy editing, typesetting, page make-up and so on, leading ultimately to publication, without need for further revisions. To achieve that outcome, you need to keep in mind that although the letter is formally addressed to the editor, it is likely that the reviewers too will read it .

Writing an effective revisions letter

Here are some suggestions for writing a revisions letter – in a way that makes it likely for the desired outcome of publication to be achieved.

1. Write with an open and collaborative frame of mind

Although revision letters are often referred to as rebuttals , this can sometimes imply an adversarial stance. Actually, you should write the revisions letter with an open and collaborative frame of mind, believing that all the parties – the editor, reviewers and you – have a shared aim, namely to publish a useful contribution that will advance the stated purpose of the journal. 

Tip : It is for this reason that many resources on publishing research papers advise you not to respond right away, especially if the reviewers have been harsh . Avoid responding in the heat of the moment.

2. Include clear responses to the comments

Your response to each point should show that you have understood it and have given it the consideration it deserves. Begin by reproducing the comment, rephrasing and shortening it as necessary, and follow up with the response, which can be quite short if the point can be dealt with easily. 

For instance, the reviewer may have pointed out that the temperature at which the experiment was conducted should be specified. In that case, all you need to say is that it was conducted at, say, 40 °C, and that the detail has been added to the Materials and Methods section at the appropriate place.

3. Respond to each point – even those you disagree with

The letter should convince the editor and, in turn, the reviewers that you have addressed all the comments and suggestions – and the most efficient way to do that is to number each comment (including suggestions, if any) and then offer your response. 

Note that although the reviewers will have made many suggestions, you can decline some of them . Remember that addressing a comment does not necessarily mean that you have to accept and agree with the comment. It can just mean that you respond to a particular comment and share your arguments for why you have chosen to decline those suggestions.

4. Respond rationally to comments you disagree with

Disagreeing can be tricky but sometimes unavoidable.

If a reviewer has suggested that you undertake additional experiments and studies, see if you can show that as far as the present paper is concerned, your data support the conclusions, although the suggested study may have strengthened them even more.

Another possibility is that the additional study is no longer possible for reasons of logistics or because the sample has been exhausted, and so on.

5. Respond to comments about language after taking necessary action

Sometimes, the reviewers will have advised you to have the manuscript copy-edited by a native-speaking editor or editorial agency for language, usage, correct grammar and so on. To respond to such a comment, you could add that you have had the manuscript revised for language by a professional editor or an editorial services agency.

6. Refrain from excessive thanks

Refrain from thanking the reviewer every time you offer your response or from saying that you agree with the reviewer. If the reviewer has been particularly gracious and helpful, you could acknowledge that help before beginning the point-by-point response .

7. Present your responses in a tabular format

It can be a good idea to present your responses via a table. For each reviewer , draw up a table with three or four columns. The first column will show the comment number; the second, the comment or suggestion; the third, your response; and the fourth, the relevant excerpt from the revised text. Any general comments can come before the tables or after them.

8. Conclude with a thanks

End the revisions letter by thanking the editor and offering to undertake further revisions if required.

Happy revising!

Maximise your publication success with Charlesworth Author Services.

Charlesworth Author Services, a trusted brand supporting the world’s leading academic publishers, institutions and authors since 1928. 

To know more about our services, visit: Our Services

Share with your colleagues

Scientific Editing Services

Sign up – stay updated.

We use cookies to offer you a personalized experience. By continuing to use this website, you consent to the use of cookies in accordance with our Cookie Policy.

How to Write a Good Revision Letter For an Academic Paper

My system to address major revisions and get my papers accepted, the revision process, overcome the first impression, preparing the response letter, identify the major changes, address the major changes.

I just finished a major revision for one of my research papers. 1 It was a lot of work, as usual. Writing a response letter for the editor and reviewers is always a challenging process. After receiving the editor’s decision, I had to put aside what I’m working on at the moment and focus on the revision. That’s the only way to prepare a good revision letter . One that maximizes the chances of getting the paper accepted, finally. So, I want to seize this time of relief (I just sent the revision letter, hurrah!) to write a blog post sharing my insights. Along the time, there are many things that I’ve learned about academic papers’ revisions. After reading this post, you will know my system and acquire some useful resources, which I’ve perfected and battle-tested during the last years. I hope that this post will help you navigate your major revision with panache.

You submitted your precious paper to an academic journal and clicked the magic “submit” button. A few days after that, an associate editor is designed to handle your submission. The editor then chooses two or three expert reviewers who will bring comments and suggestions about the paper.

In some editorial management systems the reviewers will give direct recommendations regarding your paper’s fate. For most prestigious journals, the revision is typically done in a time period between three and six months.

Depending on the output of the reviewers, the editor has to take a decision on whether to accept the paper or not. Often happens that the paper has some potential for acceptance but there are still significant concerns from the reviewers’ side. In this case, the editor decides to go into a revision round before acceptance.

Either way, you will receive an official decision from the editor containing all the reviewer’s comments. There are four different possible decisions from the editor:

• Accept: There’s nothing to do on your side here. This very positive first response almost never happen in practice.
• Reject: There’s nothing to do on your side here. Collect the reviewers’ feedback, improve the paper and resubmit to another journal. It happens in approximately 40% of submissions.
• Minor revision: The paper is almost accepted. Only a few minor changes or clarifications are needed. Receiving this output from good journals is very rare. It happens in less than 10% of submissions.
• Major revision: The paper could be accepted after some significant changes. This means it’s going to be a second round of revision. This is the most common output from good journals. It happens in approximately 50% of submissions.

The whole process looks as follows:

The rest of this post focuses on addressing a major revision decision, which is the most likely positive output that you can receive, according to my experience.

Let’s face it: accepting harch criticism is not easy sometimes. And some bad reviewers could write aggressive comments. But no matter what, you should know that a major revision is actually a very good output. It’s an opportunity to get your paper accepted, finally!

I recommend you to read the whole letter from the editor a couple of times and put is aside for a few days. The idea is to cold-down your initial (often negative) impression about the response. Remember that you have some time, usually between one and three months, to prepare the response letter.

A few days after receiving the response, you’ll probably feel more positive regarding the paper outcome. The next step is filling a revision letter template with all the reviewers’ comments. It is also a good idea to set a schedule and mark a deadline in your calendar to handle the revision. This is important because you probably have to set aside whatever you’re doing. A major revision is an excellent chance to get the paper done, so don’t take risks and work seriously on the revision.

Do not reinvent the wheel: use a template to add the comments from the editor and reviewers. You’ll write your responses in that document. It should look professional. I recommend using LaTeX. You can download my revision letter template below:

The first page of the revision letter should address the editor. Make sure to put the submission identifier of your paper on top of this page. 2 This facilitates editorial work when tracking your paper.

Also, on the first page, include a bullet list summarizing the significant changes made in the paper. I recommend using passive voice tense, indicating concrete improvements made in the paper. For example, “We have added …”, “We have edited …”, “We have modified …”, etc. I recommend you to provide direct references here to each major comment from the reviewers addressed in the text. For example, “We have added a new Section X with the implementation details of Foo (Asked by R1 in Comment 1.3).”

The rest of the revision letter addresses the reviewers. Decompose all the reviewer’s comments (some reviewers write large paragraphs including several comments) and write them one by one. Each comment should have a unique number. For example, R1 Comment 1.2 and so on. Once you have set every question or concern, you can then address them.

A major revision means that the reviewers expect major changes to be made in the paper. I would say that you should make sure to include at least three major changes. Sometimes is difficult to recognize the difference between major and minor changes. The following are examples of major changes and what there are not.

A major change is :

• A new experiment
• A new section discussing a particular result
• A new research question
• A comparison with the state-of-the-art

A major change is not :

• Adding more examples
• Improving the readability of a section
• Adding more references
• Fixing some typos

I recommend starting with the minor changes first (usually typos and minor corrections). Then move forward and address the major changes one-by-one.

The major changes are the core of the revision letter. It typically involves carrying on a lot of work. There is no workaround here. Don’t evade the nasty comments from the reviewers. Accept them.

I suggest adding figures and tables directly in the revision letter (as a gift for the reviewers) explaining the major changes in the paper. For example, if you carried out a new experiment and collected new data, add a figure in the revision letter showing the data collection pipeline. Be sure to include appropriate additional references in the revision letter when necessary.

After you’re done, set the response letter aside for a few days. Send it to your research colleagues and ask for feedback. Then go back to it with fresh eyes, and improve it as much as you can.

As you may already notice, there is a lot of work being done during the revision stage, way before accepting each research paper. However, I’ve noticed that researchers typically don’t disclose their revision documents. Maybe some researchers are afraid of showing the weaknesses of their research. All this work is lost somewhere on the way, and at the end only the flawless published paper is promoted and shared.

I strongly believe that openness is overall healthy for science. Below you can look at some examples of my revision letters for two consecutive major revisions I’ve done for paper that I published in a prestigious software engineering journal . Hopefully, this will give you a notion of the amount of work being put along the revision process.

Dealing with major revisions is part of the academic business. Researchers spend a lot of time and effort preparing response letters for reviewers. All these effort results in better papers, and better science after all. I’ve dealt with many major revisions, and preparing the revision letter is always a lot of necessary work. If you just received a response for your submission, then don’t panic and follow my system and template. I assure you that it works in most cases. 3

You can read the full paper here if you’re interested.  ↩

Most editorial systems assign a unique identifier to each paper after submission.  ↩

Indeed, my system has worked very well: 100% of success so far 😄.  ↩

• ← Previous Post
• Next Post →

Related Posts

How i peer review research papers, empirical software engineering research is harder than you think, shortening the distance between academia and industry.

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

How shall we reply to an editor after a minor revision of a paper?

I received the editor's comments as follows:

The revised version of your manuscript xxx has been reviewed by our referees. Referee A is now satisfied with your paper, while Referee B is more or less satisfied but supplies a long list of remarks that need to be taken into account. While we cannot make a definite commitment, we will probably accept your paper for publication, provided you make changes that we judge to be in accordance with the appended comments (or other satisfactory responses are given).

I have revised my manuscript and prepared a detailed explanation of how I have dealt with all of the comments of reviewer B. Actually, there are just 7 comments on the manuscript.

Now, I am going to reply to the editor. Could you suggest me how to write a reply to the editor like this, such as ''While we cannot make a definite commitment, we will probably accept your paper for publication, provided you make changes that we judge to be in accordance with the appended comments''? And What should I need to notice?

Thank you in advance.

• peer-review
• paper-submission

• 1 “Dear editor, here is the revised manuscript. We corrected it according to the recommendations of the reviewers, as is specified in the attached document. We hope that the manuscript is now satisfactory and suitable for publication.” –  Gimelist Commented Feb 11, 2018 at 5:37

There’s nothing going on behind the scenes here. Just send it back and say “I’ve made the requested edits, I hope the manuscript is now satisfactory,” or whatever you would normally say to an editor when sending back a paper.

You seem to think that there’s some kind of implicit social dynamic going on with the editors comments. There isn’t.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for browse other questions tagged peer-review paper-submission editors ..

• Featured on Meta
• Bringing clarity to status tag usage on meta sites
• Announcing a change to the data-dump process

Hot Network Questions

• How can coordinates be meaningless in General Relativity?
• When trying to find the quartiles for discrete data, do we round to the nearest whole number?
• Can Christian Saudi Nationals Visit Mecca?
• Creating Layout of 2D Board game
• What does "if you ever get up this way" mean?
• Is it possible to draw a series of mutually perpendicular curves in TikZ?
• Could an empire rise by economic power?
• Is loss of availability automatically a security incident?
• How to prevent my frozen dessert from going solid?
• How to resolve this calculation prompt that appears after running the drawing program?
• Unable to upgrade from Ubuntu Server 22.04 to 24.04.1
• Geometry optimization of two or more different interacting molecules
• "The earth was formless and void" Did the earth exist before God created the world?
• Testing if a string is a hexadecimal string in LaTeX3: code review, optimization, expandability, and protection
• Homeomorphism between topological subspaces
• Can a quadrilateral polygon have 3 obtuse angles?
• Is it possible to recover from a graveyard spiral?
• Why is there so much salt in cheese?
• In Lord Rosse's 1845 drawing of M51, was the galaxy depicted in white or black?
• Fill the grid with numbers to make all four equations true
• Nearly stalled on takeoff after just 3 hours training on a PPL. Is this normal?
• Has any astronomer ever observed that after a specific star going supernova it became a Black Hole?
• Can I arxive a paper that I had already published in a journal(EPL, in my case), so that eveyone can access it?
• Calculating area of intersection of two segmented polygons in QGIS

• Discoveries
• Right Journal
• Journal Metrics
• Journal Fit
• Abbreviation
• In-Text Citations
• Bibliographies
• Writing an Article
• Peer Review Types
• Acknowledgements
• Withdrawing a Paper
• Form Letter
• ISO, ANSI, CFR
• Google Scholar
• Journal Manuscript Editing
• Research Manuscript Editing

Book Editing

• Manuscript Editing Services

Medical Editing

• Bioscience Editing
• Physical Science Editing
• PhD Thesis Editing Services
• PhD Editing
• Master’s Proofreading
• Bachelor’s Editing
• Dissertation Proofreading Services
• Best Dissertation Proofreaders
• Masters Dissertation Proofreading
• PhD Proofreaders
• Proofreading PhD Thesis Price
• Journal Article Editing
• Book Editing Service
• Editing and Proofreading Services
• Research Paper Editing
• Medical Manuscript Editing
• Academic Editing
• Social Sciences Editing
• Academic Proofreading
• PhD Theses Editing
• Dissertation Proofreading
• Proofreading Rates UK
• Medical Proofreading
• PhD Proofreading Services UK
• Academic Proofreading Services UK

Medical Editing Services

• Life Science Editing
• Biomedical Editing
• Environmental Science Editing
• Pharmaceutical Science Editing
• Economics Editing
• Psychology Editing
• Sociology Editing
• Archaeology Editing
• History Paper Editing
• Anthropology Editing
• Law Paper Editing
• Engineering Paper Editing
• Technical Paper Editing
• Philosophy Editing
• PhD Dissertation Proofreading
• Lektorat Englisch
• Akademisches Lektorat
• Lektorat Englisch Preise
• Wissenschaftliches Lektorat
• Lektorat Doktorarbeit

PhD Thesis Editing

• Thesis Proofreading Services
• PhD Thesis Proofreading
• Proofreading Thesis Cost
• Proofreading Thesis
• Thesis Editing Services
• Professional Thesis Editing
• Thesis Editing Cost
• Proofreading Dissertation
• Dissertation Proofreading Cost
• Dissertation Proofreader
• Correção de Artigos Científicos
• Correção de Trabalhos Academicos
• Serviços de Correção de Inglês
• Correção de Dissertação
• Correção de Textos Precos
• 定額 ネイティブチェック
• Copy Editing
• FREE Courses
• Revision en Ingles
• Revision de Textos en Ingles
• Revision de Tesis
• Revision Medica en Ingles
• Revision de Tesis Precio
• Revisão de Artigos Científicos
• Revisão de Trabalhos Academicos
• Serviços de Revisão de Inglês
• Revisão de Dissertação
• Revisão de Textos Precos
• Corrección de Textos en Ingles
• Corrección de Tesis
• Corrección de Tesis Precio
• Corrección Medica en Ingles
• Corrector ingles

Select Page

Three Cover Letter Templates to Journal Editors

Posted by Rene Tetzner | Aug 26, 2021 | How To Get Published | 0 |

Three Cover Letter Templates to Journal Editors Each cover letter is unique, and those addressed to journal editors by scientists and academics when they submit their writing for publication are no exception. As an opportunity to present original research in the best possible light, a cover letter is indispensible for persuading a busy editor that a manuscript is worthy of peer review. A letter can only achieve this goal, however, if it is well written, contains everything the particular journal’s author instructions request for cover letters and offers specific and detailed information about why the research reported and the paper itself are perfect for the journal and of special interest to its readers. The originality that should characterise an excellent cover letter therefore prevents the wholesale use of a universal template without significant alterations, but the three sample letters that appear below may prove helpful for scholars who are planning, formatting and drafting a professional cover letter to a journal editor.

The content of the three sample letters is entirely fictional, with the dates, names, titles and situations invented. The specifics pertinent to your own research, your manuscript and the journal you are targeting will give you the raw material to emulate these templates. The format of a traditional business letter has been observed, so contact information for the authors and editors has been provided as complete mailing addresses. This formality may not be strictly necessary when communicating with a journal editor via email, where such details are often truncated, but the complete forms are always acceptable, and proper names and titles are a necessity. If possible, the official letterhead of the university, department or other research body with which you are affiliated should be used along with your name, phone number and professional email address.

Descriptions of the research and manuscript in each of the three examples have been kept simple so that the meaning will be clear to readers of all specialisations, but there are certainly successful cover letters that delve into a good deal more detail. Letter 2 below, for instance, might productively say more about the specific lights used and tomato plants grown and provide numbers and percentages as well. Do keep in mind, however, that the clarity and accessibility offered by a short and simple approach is also valuable, particularly when writing to an editor who may not share your precise specialisation.

Letter 1 adopts the perspective of a doctoral candidate who has rewritten the literature review chapter of his thesis as a bibliographical study and is seeking publication for the first time. Letter 2 introduces a research paper written by several authors and demonstrates how to act as the corresponding author when submitting a multi-author manuscript. Letter 3 posits that the author met the journal editor at a recent conference where an earlier version of the paper now being submitted for a theme issue of the journal was presented.

Download –> Letter 1: A Doctoral Candidate Seeking His First Publication

Joe Student Department of English University of the Western Shore San Francisco, CA, USA 98765 777-999-8888 [email protected]

Dr. Brian Editing Editor-in-Chief Journal of Analytical Middle English Bibliography New York, NY, USA 12345 [email protected]

November 8, 2017

Dear Dr. Editing,

I am writing to submit my article entitled ‘A Bibliography of Hoccleve Studies from the Fifteenth Century to 2017: Patterns of Readership and Response’ for publication in the   Journal of Analytical Middle English Bibliography . This manuscript is based on a chapter of my doctoral thesis, supervised by Dr Hoccleve Specialist, and has not been published or submitted elsewhere for consideration.

I believe this manuscript is appropriate for the   Journal of Analytical Middle English Bibliography   because it combines a complete list and critical summary of previous studies with an in-depth analysis of not only individual contributions, but also the larger patterns of scholarship and their possible significance through the centuries. As I argue in the paper, the autobiographical nature of Hoccleve’s writing and the bouts of madness he claims to have experienced are topics upon which perspectives and approaches swing on a particularly long pendulum. Shifts in opinion regarding the literary quality of Hoccleve’s poetry are similarly striking. Current trends and the annotated Hoccleve bibliography will likely prove of special interest to many of your readers, enabling future research and encouraging scholarly self-awareness.

If you decide to consider the manuscript for publication, I suggest the following two experts as qualified reviewers:

Dr. Medieval Scholarship Professor of English, Southern University [email protected]

Dr. Manuscript Expert Director of Medieval Studies, Northern University [email protected]

Many thanks for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response.

Joe Student

Joe Student Ph.D. Candidate and Teaching Assistant Department of English University of the Western Shore

Download –> Letter 2: A Corresponding Author Submitting an Article Written by Several Researchers

Jane Researcher Private Plant Research Institute 9201 Pink Greenhouse Place Coquitlam, BC, Canada, V0V 1A1 604-604-6044 [email protected]

Dr Samuel Botanist Managing Editor Growing Our Greenhouse: A Journal of Current Research 2020 Glass Hill Colorado Springs, CO, USA, 59678 [email protected]

November 22, 2017

Dear Dr Botanist,

I am delighted to submit an original research article entitled ‘LED Lights Increase Vitamin C Content in Greenhouse Cherry Tomatoes’ for publication in   Growing Our Greenhouse: A Journal of Current Research . My colleagues and I at the Private Plant Research Institute in Coquitlam conducted the research and coauthored the manuscript; a full list of the names and affiliations of all ten coauthors is attached. We have all approved the manuscript for submission to   Growing Our Greenhouse , and I have been chosen as the corresponding author.

The article is particularly appropriate for the journal’s section dedicated to the cultivation of fruits and vegetables. It is, in fact, a continuation of the research presented in our article ‘Can LED Lights Really Replace the Sun for Tomatoes?’ which was published in that section of   Growing Our Greenhouse   two years ago. Then we were analysing the results of our first two seasons of growing tomatoes under LED lights. One of the unexpected discoveries we made as we determined which plants and lights produced the best results was that vitamin C content appeared to increase when the ripening fruit was exposed to LED light.

The research reported in the manuscript I am submitting today was designed to investigate further the apparent increases in vitamin C. Its methodology is similar to that of our earlier study, but we used only those cherry tomato plants that we had already shown could thrive under LED lights. We also established a larger number of experimental groups to explore the effects of variables such as light colour, light intensity, hours of exposure, ambient temperature and presence or absence of sunlight. Our findings were convincing to say the least, with vitamin C content doubling and sometimes trebling in fruit exposed to additional LED light. Even fruit given only LED lighting and deprived of all natural sunlight far exceeded the vitamin C content of those tomatoes exposed to natural sunlight alone.

We trust that your readers will find our hands-on empirical method as effective as they have in the past and benefit from our practices and discoveries as they grow and experiment in their own greenhouses.

Thank you for your continuing interest and consideration.

Yours sincerely,

Jane Researcher

Jane Researcher Research Director, Private Plant Research Institute

Download –> Letter 3: A Conference Participant Submitting a Paper to the Journal Editor She Met

Sheila Presenter Chair, School of Business Management Yorkshire University 2121 University Road York, North Yorkshire, UK, YO33 7EE 01904 323232 [email protected]

Dr Margaret Publisher Editor-in-Chief Journal of Innovative Business Studies 178B West Central Avenue London, UK, EC9M 6BB [email protected]

25 November 2017

Dear Dr Publisher,

It was a pleasure meeting you and discussing our similar interests at the Business Management conference in London a couple of weeks ago. As promised, I have revised my presentation and am submitting it for your consideration for the upcoming issue of the   Journal of Innovative Business Studies   dedicated to management innovations. The new title of the manuscript is ‘Empathy as a Management Strategy Yields Significant Increases in Efficiency and Productivity.’

You might recall that we discussed the challenges of reshaping my presentation, which was designed to generate in conference attendees the emotional responses it discusses, to conform to the structural requirements of the   Journal of Innovative Business Studies . The journal’s author instructions were actually very helpful, and I believe the overall argument of the paper is now clearer as a result of the rearrangement. I also took a look at the recent   Journal of Innovative Business Studies   articles by Sally Scholar and John Researcher that you recommended. The former was particularly helpful and I have cited it more than once in my closing discussion. That discussion has benefited significantly from our long talk at the conference and I hope you do not object to my acknowledgement of your insight.

As you know, the research presented in the manuscript is original and has not been published or submitted elsewhere. My methods comply with the journal’s ethical standards, I have no conflicts of interest to disclose and I have removed all traces of my identity in preparation for blind review. I would respectfully request that Stephen Harsh not review the manuscript, however. His knowledge in this area is extensive, but you may remember from his comments at the conference that he does not share my approach to management or view my recent research with a positive eye. I believe the following two experts would serve as more appropriate reviewers of my paper:

Frederick Newapproach CEO, Management Innovations UK Inc. [email protected] Samantha Kindheart Chair, Department of Business Management University of the Wolds [email protected]

I look forward to seeing you at the upcoming conference in Leeds. In the meantime, let me take this opportunity to thank you for your interest and consideration.

Best regards,

Sheila Presenter

Sheila Presenter Chair, School of Business Management Yorkshire University

You might be interested in Services offered by Proof-Reading-Service.com

Journal editing.

Journal article editing services

PhD thesis editing services

Scientific Editing

Manuscript editing.

Manuscript editing services

Expert Editing

Expert editing for all papers

Research Editing

Research paper editing services

Professional book editing services

Related Posts

Choosing the Right Journal

September 10, 2021

Example of a Quantitative Research Paper

September 4, 2021

What Is a Good H-Index Required for an Academic Position?

September 3, 2021

Acknowledgements Example for an Academic Research Paper

September 1, 2021

Our Recent Posts

Our review ratings

• Examples of Research Paper Topics in Different Study Areas Score: 98%
• Dealing with Language Problems – Journal Editor’s Feedback Score: 95%
• Making Good Use of a Professional Proofreader Score: 92%
• How To Format Your Journal Paper Using Published Articles Score: 95%
• Journal Rejection as Inspiration for a New Perspective Score: 95%

Explore our Categories

• Abbreviation in Academic Writing (4)
• Career Advice for Academics (5)
• Dealing with Paper Rejection (11)
• Grammar in Academic Writing (5)
• Help with Peer Review (7)
• How To Get Published (146)
• Paper Writing Advice (17)
• Referencing & Bibliographies (16)

Search form

• Send Us Your News
• Wedding Guide
• Death Notices
• Privacy Policy
• Drive South
• Media Council Complaints

Letters to the Editor: heritage, potholes and boot camps

You are not permitted to download, save or email this image. Visit image gallery to purchase the image.

Willing owners and workable rules needed

Gerry Eckhoff’s (Opinion  ODT  29.8.24) article likens heritage protection to theft. This is an argument that only looks at a small aspect of the issue and not the big picture.

No ownership of property is without rules. There are a vast array of planning rules that govern this, from height limits to yard setbacks.

These are there to try to help shape the place we live in for the good of all. Heritage rules are part of this, and without them buildings that don’t economically maximise the value of their sites, such as as the Dunedin Railway Station, most churches and many significant houses, could be lost.

What I think Gerry is objecting to is that act of providing heritage protection to a building that previously hasn’t been listed ... which of course is something that has to happen if any buildings are to be protected.

Like many planning rules such as, say, changing height limits, this can affect the value of the property, but that is not a valid reason to say this shouldn’t be done.

It could be, however, that where buildings of real merit are selected for listing, greater efforts are made for this to be a desirable outcome for the owner. From access to heritage funding for maintenance, to agreements to limit intrusive, costly and irrelevant aspects of the protection. The listing might, for example, exclude aspects that could limit future development, or aspects that could require future repairs or maintenance work to be done in a very expensive way.

In the end the only way to save a heritage buildings in the long term is to find a good economic use, so protection on its own will not work. Willing owners working with helpful and flexible planning is the only real path to success.

Listen to the boss

The 29.8.24 Opinion page made me think — Ian Davie’s Climate of Shame and Gerrard Eckhoff’s Understated, about our dysfunctional state and local government, who are on a self-destructive spree in this country.

If we listened to our Head of State King Charles we would be a better society. I know he is a long way away and is not allowed to interfere in politics but anyone employed by the Crown should, out of respect, listen to his concerns as a kind of moral compass if you care about heritage and nature.

If only our current ministers would ask themselves what would the boss think about inflicting austerity on a nation that was trashed by climate events and deadly pandemic or tearing down all the imperial Britannic-inspired buildings to make way for American-style corporate warehouses. Or maybe ask if this generation has the right to end human civilisation through bloody-minded gross incompetence.

He might not be allowed to tell you but it’s clear what the answer is. Especially if you are sworn in.

Might I be permitted to point out what I consider to be the gross inadequacy in dealing with an instance of surface-break-up.

On Somerville St, right outside Marne St Hospital, five or six shallow potholes have been developing.

A couple of days ago I noticed that they had been attended to, if an apologetic small dollop of asphalt around the size of a dinner side-plate or a saucer is considered to be adequate; more especially so when the parsimonious amount of asphalt used has barely filled the holes to the level of the surrounding road surface, which has itself, showed signs of cracking up and enlarging the area to be filled in next time, if ever.

[Abridged — length. Editor]

Do not succumb to intellectual capitulation

At the British Association’s annual meeting held in Oxford on June 30, 1860, Samuel Wilberforce, the Bishop of Oxford, challenged Thomas Huxley as to whether he was descended from a monkey through his grandfather or grandmother. This debate followed just seven months after the publication of Darwin’s  On the Origin of Species .

Well over a century later, I discussed the same issue, the ancestry of our species, with the then Bishop of Oxford, but in a more respectful milieu. M.W. Cowan, like Soapy Sam, professes his ignorance by parroting that we must be descended from chimpanzees. The alternative model, based on and supported by scientific data, sees both humans and chimpanzees following separate evolutionary pathways from a common ancestor.

Indeed, we also share a proportion of our DNA with bananas, as well as with every other lifeform. To identify the last universal common ancestor, we have to go back not just 7 million years but at least 3.5 billion, to an organism with a single cell identified in the Pilbara region of Western Australia. So M.D. Cowan can relax in the knowledge that he is indeed related to a banana.

M.D. Cowan and the Rev Pastor Ben Hudson are perfectly entitled to their belief in their chosen deity.

However, to quote Richard Dawkins, they should also reflect that "to succumb to the God temptation in either of those guises, biological or cosmological, is an act of intellectual capitulation."

Ignorant chorus misses point of camp life

The ignorant, persistent chorus "we tried boot camps, they don’t work" annoys me.

In 1959, aged 15, I was apprenticed on a 10,000-hour contract to the Labour Department and a printing company in Dunedin. I was a middle-of-the-road student and could have objected when my father suggested it, but I didn’t, partly because I was bored.

There were five apprentices and about 14 tradespeople in a total staff of about 25. First-year apprentices swept the floors, unloaded and loaded trucks and performed most of the lesser tasks. As we developed skills the lesser tasks were handed back down line. For me, that was important progress and success plus a source of pride.

I had to complete weekly trade correspondence assignments, in my own time. If we got behind our employer got a letter from the school.

If you listened and learned you got encouraged and helped. If you didn’t the worst-case scenario was you could lose you apprenticeship and that was public failure.

Most of those men and women were important role models for me. They had families, they were proud of their skills, they earned good money, they worked hard and their work was valued. I absolutely respected them and I wanted what they had in life.

I was fortunate to experience and appreciate discipline, direction, opportunity, hope, pride, ambition, encouragement and success. I was inspired to learn the meaning of self discipline and consequences, I had meaningful support and was mentored throughout my formative years.

Today we cut our young people adrift at the slightest excuse, pay them to do nothing and then wonder why youth crime skyrockets. There is a need for a learning regime based on the attributes listed above and which apprenticeships and post-school training once provided.

Call it what you will. Just don’t let senseless, negative catchphrases define it. If we incorporate a genuine, positive mindset it can be done. The gangs have been doing it for years.

[Abridged — length. Editor.]

Address Letters to the Editor to: Otago Daily Times, PO Box 517, 52-56 Lower Stuart St, Dunedin. Email:  [email protected]

Related Stories

Get them enrolled in Dun101 course

Argument you could drive a truck through

The combined wisdom of 137 years

'Tough call': Dunedin salon closes doors

Jottings on ladies’ fashion

Cartoonist’s view — Yeo

Stop hospital plan changes

Meeting may exclude public

Expansion ‘positive’ for wider region

Third time is not lucky for nationalists

Running away no respite from fourth form Latin