Is it worth writing covering letters anymore? Yes, but not for the reason you'd imagine

After a talk on scientific writing and editorial that I'd given at research institute, member of the audience asked me whether covering letters really mattered much these days: after all – he asserted editors seem to have less time assess manuscript; if they want it as objectively possible, surely should read parts manuscript in preference letter might well been carefully tailored unjustifiably „persuade“ or even deceive editor. The person making observation was researcher who had also done long service journal editor, I shared his opinion large degree. However, situation is definitely not so clear-cut, my colleague (Mark Paalman, very experienced editor) accompanied institutional visit noted. Having covered various substantial communication within accompanying past editorials, realized hadn't full thought last thing submitting author writes before sending off manuscript. have, through two decades work, noticed what seems be paradox: whereas many authors manage „undersell“ their manuscripts with suboptimal titles abstracts (i.e. emphasizing novel discoveries insights explicitly), same cannot said, largely, letters. It's frame-of-mind thing, believe: title abstract are mostly written mind-set dispassionate, cold, objectivism, indifference obviously firm belief people receiving paper (editors/peer reviewers) precisely ones will able judge its importance, novelty overall merit regardless; or, worse, first viewing other side desk take whole find out for her-/himself why it's worth considering publication putting into peer review). This often leads production just inexplicit, but highly field-specific terms acronyms. letter, hand, personal appeal single editor engage topic quickly explicitly. My feeling do better job respect than most abstracts. So, now hard question hand: does any today? Yes, think does, widely-believed reason i.e. an invariably reads. It can reads, particularly attached revised gives details responses reviewer comments and/or reminds particular conditions re-assessment (e.g. related discrepancy between reviewer(s), deemed necessary address revision); submission contain more about certain reviewers avoided, circumstances competition groups. For reasons is, incidentally, good idea put exactly text uploaded file suitable field online system. Uploaded files usually archived deleted from system few months, needs re-visit may awkward costly extracted system's archive; metadata fields record, contrast, stay active forever, together pertaining submission. main point, however, sometimes, specific reasons, expected by because usefully informs course action. What „usual“ behaviour towards newly submitted manuscript? divulge own practice (which fairly standard amongst colleagues too): first, being little time, those help rapidly some basic aspects suitability (I worked several besides BioEssays): close enough core subject area journal? If review under rubric journal, truly review-style paper, present applied instead fundamental research? Does represent major insight (high impact), rather useful incremental advance knowledge? Can I, indeed, understand apply aforementioned criteria? English confident concentrates science, undistracted quality prose, then would pursue further. Such criteria enable reach preliminary judgement likelihood piece not), end matter: cases, subset them lead next inspect letter. example, this way confirm identification either work insights, pure work; clarify balance fundamental/applied research; progress crucial body manuscript, appropriate; make attempt forming worthiness science despite doesn't sufficient justice review. In case, ask arrange native speaker edit re-submit it. case subject-matter-mismatch impact-mismatch, suggest another near to, cluster as, journal. Finally, see further (potential) „usefulnesses“ but, again, typically such: 1. appealing language One certainly must exclude possibility reading one absolutely rely either. Hence try imbue manuscript's scientifically sound justified enthusiasm reasonable format length snippets information. Bear mind, intended summary readers consider sufficiently important greater depth. reader explicit impact your pay dividends. Is possible write regardless letter? Not quite: believe abstraction technicalities automatically experiences when device placing oneself role receiver. 2. checkpoint choice justifications there: young researchers receive rejection faulty choice. fit journal's aims scope? conclude, you not, opinion, exercise sake, stimulus acts optimization perform submission: optimizing appeal, Andrew Moore Editor-in-Chief