Novice authors usually face difficulties in crafting a suitable cover letter to accompany their submission. Since most scholars give importance to composing their articles well, they often underestimate the importance of the cover letter. They might send a hastily composed cover letter as an afterthought before submitting the manuscript.

However, researchers of publishing have observed the importance of cover letters in influencing the publishability of the manuscript. Though the reviewers don’t read the cover letter, the editor does. It is possible that the editor might be influenced by the identity of the author as it emerges through the details in the letterhead. The style of the letter will also help them make some inferences about the author’s professionalism. For example, those who don’t use the letterhead might give the impression that they don’t belong to an established educational institution. And the way the letter is crafted will give some impressions about the writing skills of the author.

It is important to use your institutional letterhead to write your cover letter. Most universities will allow their faculty members or graduate students to use the department’s letterhead (as my department does). However, many journals now provide a space for cover letters in their web submission platform. Therefore, a letterhead may not be needed. Yet, journals also provide a space to upload a letter. If authors prefer to upload a document, it is advisable to use a letterhead for their cover letter.

In writing the cover letter, most authors waver between an extremely brief or an extremely profuse cover letter, depending on their attitudes. I have received many such letters belonging to either extreme as an editor of TESOL Quarterly. Those who believe that they should not unfairly influence the review process, write a single statement such as “I am hereby attaching a manuscript for your perusal.” Others write a two-page letter that boasts about their credentials (such as the names of their graduate supervisors, and the prizes they have won) and how their manuscript will make revolutionary contributions. However, effective letters fall somewhere between these extremes. Besides, they require certain mandatory information that editors will be looking for. John Swales has done a corpus analysis of cover letters, and provides the following useful guidelines (the quoted lines are from Swales, 1996, pp. 55-56):

Submission: Swales recommends a “neutral submission statement” and advises against being too “pushy” about the worth of the paper.

Commentary: He recommends only a few statements about the content of the manuscript, but suggests stating the previous forms of the paper, such as conference presentations. This information is important for full disclosure, as certain forms of prior dissemination don’t qualify for submission. Swales also advises against including a summary of the paper as it is already available in the abstract that most journals require.

Advocacy for the paper: Swales says that this is “usually unnecessary” unless the paper may at first sight appear unsuitable for that journal. In case of an atypical line of research in that discipline, it is useful to indicate how the study relates to ongoing scholarly conversations in the field.

Bio-data: Swales advises that “none of these is relevant to the quality of the paper.” Furthermore, personal details are unnecessary as most journals request a short bio-data to accompany the paper anyway.

Publication plans: The writer should declare that the paper is not being considered elsewhere for publication. Many journals now formally ask you to declare that the submission has not been simultaneously submitted anywhere else for consideration.

Offers and invitations to revise: Swales advises against this. That the writer agrees to revise is usually taken for granted, and asking editors to do it (which Swales finds many multilingual and off-networked scholars doing) is treated as somewhat peculiar. This move usually indicates that the author is not familiar with the publishing process. In most journals, the review process inevitably results in extensive revisions for almost all submissions.

Request for response: Swales permits a formal expression of hope of hearing from the editors soon before signing off, but advises against expressing even “justifiable anxieties” about delays. From the review process to eventually appearing in print (with the in-between processes of copyediting, proof reading, etc.), a submission typically takes at least 18 months. Therefore, authors should not display a hurry to see their articles in print.

Reference: Swales, J. (1996). Occluded genres in the academy: The case of the submission letter. In Eija Ventola and Anna Mauranen (eds.), Academic writing: Intercultural and textual issues, pp. 45-58. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

–Suresh Canagarajah