Katie has been discussing how to write covering letters . I was always fascinated by how my previous boss managed to make our work sound of fundamental importance to . . . well, just about everyone, really.
A well-written covering letter at least shows respect for the Editor who is handling your opus, and might actually be useful in persuading them to send the manuscript out to review instead of laughing hollowly and consigning it to the ‘ach, I can’t be arsed’ pile. But — just like writing papers and giving seminars — cover-letter writing is one of those things that we are, as far as I can tell, supposed to acquire by osmosis.
But I wondered if you have hints or advice you’d like to share. If so, you should leave a comment.
So. Please. Leave a comment .
My favorite cover letters, as an editor, were those that managed to be both brief, and enumerated exactly what results were included therein (preferably as a punchy bulleted list).
But is is a black art, the cover letter.
I take cheques and direct bank transfers.
What? No crisp fivers in a plain white envelope?
a) As a referee I never bother to read a covering letter. If there is anything of importance in the paper it should be obvious from the abstract and also clear in the submission.
b) As an author I find it really irritating to write a covering letter that “explain” what is so earth shattering about my work that it should be even considerd by the
selfimportant journal.c) Puffing up the content of a paper goes against my innate self-deprecatory style (my Britishness).
d) While I am ranting, I am also annoyed when the journal asks for you to suggest some referees.
As an editor, I like to see a covering letter. Reading a manuscript without a covering letter seems weird, almost rude. A covering letter is a kind of getting-to-know-you handshake between author and editor. Here is a list, in no particular order (even though I’ve numbered the points), of what (in my opinion) makes a good covering letter.
1) It is clear and concise with no obvious spelling mistakes (you wouldn’t believe how much that irritates editors – or maybe you would);
2) it describes the work and the essence of the new contribution it represents, as briefly as possible. Actually, this is more of a ‘would be nice’ rather than a must-do, because so much should be clear from the paper’s abstract. But the covering letter should on no account hype up the findings more than they deserve;
3) details of who the corresponding author is, how they can be reached in a hurry, and the details of the person to whom comments might be sent if the corresponding author is
in the fieldon his yachtdead for tax reasonsunavailable;4) A tech-spec of the paper: how long it is, how long the abstract is, the methods section, the figures, the supplementary information, blah blah blah;
5) details of any other manuscript in press or submitted elsewhere that might be relevant;
6) there is no point 6;
7) a list (the longer the better) of suitable referees;
8) a list (brief) of unsuitable referees.
Why do you need a list of referees? Authors will not be disinterested, certainly not the self-citers and ciation club members. How do you ensure that the list of referees aren’t all there primed to say yes?
The list of referees is a suggestion Brian. Any editor worth their salt should be able to find out links between the author and the proposed referees.
And I don’t have that many friends anyway cries
We don’t need a list of referees, but it’s useful, especially if it’s an unfamiliar field. We don’t feel obliged to use all (or any) of the authors’ recommendations. However, we do honor requests by authors not to send a paper to particular referees, provided the list is no more than two or three names.
If you are writing to a specific editor, please assume that the editor has a PhD; and if you are determined to use a gender specific title, please be certain that you are using the correct one. It sounds petty, but…
If the journal has peculiar requirements for publication, it is very encouraging if you very briefly include facts in the covering letter that show that you know these and that your manuscript meets them.
I am with Henry: a list of potential referees can often be very helpful – we probably won’t use these exclusively, but it can be a good starting point. Note: It can be incredibly annoying to find that one of the authors on your manuscript has published with one of these in the last 5 years. If you are uncertain, at least do a PubMed search.
Joshua Finkelstein wrote a post on this subject for the Sceptical Chemist.
Here it is
If you are writing to a specific editor, please assume that the editor has a PhD
Oh, I don’t know. I rather like being addressed as ‘Mr Gee’. Makes me feel big and senior, like a consultant surgeon. Better that than ‘Mrs Gee’. When all else fails, ‘Henry’ always works.
The cover letter is definitely for the editor, not the referees. Most people are trying to get sent out to review, which can be the biggest hurdle.
When looking at the suggested referee list, the first thing a good editor will do is to PubMed the authors with all the suggestions to ensure they aren’t cronies present or past, and I would never ask someone from the same institute as the authors – unless the field was minute and there weren’t any other options.
“Dear Mrs Henry,
Publish my manuscript or I’ll burn your crocs.
Love,
Richard”.
Dear Richard
I refer you to an earlier discussion which touches on this subject.
Big smoochy smackeroonies
Henry
Difficult with electronic submission. I did once send a pdf with a photocopy of a €50 note attached to my letter of support for a student’s application. The student was successful too.
To clarify: I was suggesting that the authors did the Pubmed search before sending the list of referees; and it is annoying to me when I do the search and find that they have just listed a bunch of their collaborators. :)
Bronwen works, though I think addressing someone by their first name on your first written, formal contact is a Brave Decision in general. (some people have Ideas… I suppose similar to my Not-wanting-be-called-Mr-Dekker Idea…)
To clarify: I was suggesting that the authors did the Pubmed search before sending the list of referees
Call me old and cynical (go on, I dare you) but an editor’s creed should run along the lines of the apocryphal motto of the FBI:
In God we trust – everyone else, we check out
Of course I check them out Henry, but Richard was asking for advice on writing covering letters. It is amazing how many authors include people that they have collaborated with and I would like to think that some of these are accidental! Perhaps they could avoid being “caught out” by doing their own PubMed searches.
Here is the Nature advice, from its Guide to Authors
Submissions should be accompanied by a cover letter stating briefly why the conclusion is an important scientific advance and the author’s case for the work being published in Nature rather than in a specialist journal. Authors are strongly encouraged to attempt two 100-word summaries, one to encapsulate the significance of the work for readers of Nature (mainly scientists or those in scientifically related professions); and the other to explain the conclusions at an understandable level for the general public. The cover letter should also specify the number of words in the text of the paper, the number of display items (figures and tables), the number of attachments (manuscript, figures, Supplementary Information if any, supporting mansucripts), and their formats.
This paragraph is extracted from a web page called “Getting published in Nature”, which contains quite a lot of useful context for those thinking of submitting, eg proportion of ms submitted and published.
By the way, the bit about the “understandable to the general public” is not used by the editors or press office (so they tell me!), but it is intended to encourage the author to think “why Nature?” Nature is a bit different from most journals (it is just so tough getting selected for peer-review, even), and we want authors to have their best shot, by encouraging them to encapsulate just why interdisciplinary and general readers would find the advance of interest. We hope that this thought process will encourage the author to write an even clearer manuscript, and increase her or his chances of getting the message across to editors, referees and ultimately all readers. Good idea, or bad idea?
I maybe don’t have enough perspective, here, but I have never, ever had a problem in getting my article sent out to review. No, actually, I take it back: I did at Nature. :-) But I don’t take it personally.
And for those people who don’t suggest referees unless it is explicitly requested – well, I don’t, either. I figure anyone the editor sends my article to is a reader of the journal and well-placed to judge whether they would like to see this work appear in said publication. That’s not kissing up. (It’s just naivete.)
A cover letter appears to me to be a polite tool of communication that leaves a trace of the exchange. Like any other letter. One of the comments in Bronwen’s link to Joshua Finkelstein – by Catherine – mentions amusement underlain by irritation that some people begin their cover letters with “Dear Sir”. I tend to begin mine with “Dear Sir or Madam” as I rarely know to which editor it will be addressed. Is that hopelessly old-fashioned? That is, does over-formality lead to an unadmitted mark off?
It’s incorrect.
The correct form is ‘Dear Sir/Madam’, which implies that you have no prior knowledge, rather than actually being unsure about it…
What, aren’t they all hermaphrodites?
Thanks for that link to Mole that you had given, by the way.
Well, Henry certainly seems to be. Heh. I think I should go into hiding now…
Hermaphroditism beats sexism any day. And what did I once say about masturbation? Hmmm?
I don’t know Henry: they deleted it, remember?
No, I edited it out, believe it or not, for reasons of taste. But a small squirt dribbled on to your RSS feed. Or so you told me. And they say I’m forgetful?
Shh. Your indiscretion is troubling.
My crocs have worn out. I’m going to have to go out at lunchtime and buy some more.
Why then? Was it too salty?
(ducks for cover)