yuryalencar /update-cover-letter
A cover letter exists and needs to change. The commonest reason by far is resubmission to a different journal after rejection, which requires more rewriting than researchers expect, because the paragraph that matters most is the one about the journal.
Before anything else
- Load the style rules. Invoke
paper-writing-style. If absent, use the condensed rules increate-cover-letter. - Lock the language. Language of the user's first message, whole run. The letter is English.
- Read the paper and the existing letter.
Pick the mode
State the mode before starting.
| Mode | Signal | What it does |
|---|---|---|
| A. Retarget | Submitting to a different journal | Rebuild the journal-fit argument, keep the novelty |
| B. Reconcile | The paper changed since the letter was written | Fix claims and values the paper no longer supports |
| C. Apply suggestions | A co-author or supervisor commented, or /review-cover-letter output |
Incorporate each change |
| D. Resume | The letter is unfinished | Complete it |
Modes A and B frequently coincide: a paper rejected from one journal is usually revised before going to the next.
If this is a revision after peer review, not a fresh submission, this is the wrong skill. The
resubmission letter accompanies a point-by-point response to the reviewers, so use
/create-response-to-reviewers.
Mode A: retarget to a different journal
The mistake to avoid is swapping the journal name and sending it. Three things change, not one:
- The journal-fit paragraph is rewritten entirely. Whatever argued for the old venue does not argue for the new one. Ask what relates the work to this journal's scope, readership, or recent papers. If the researcher has no answer beyond impact factor, say plainly that the paragraph will be weak and that an editor reads a generic letter as a sign the paper is being shopped around.
- The novelty framing may need adjusting for the audience. A more specialist journal needs less field justification and more technical specificity; a broader one needs the importance of the whole field established. Say which direction you moved and why.
- The declarations and the article type must be checked against the new journal's requirements, which differ. Ask; do not carry the old ones over blindly.
Also: remove every trace of the previous journal. Its name, its article-type vocabulary, its editor's name, and any argument shaped around it. A letter mentioning the wrong journal is the most embarrassing possible submission error and it happens constantly. Check explicitly and report that you checked.
Never mention the previous rejection. There is no obligation to disclose it and nothing to gain.
Mode B: reconcile with the paper
Check, in order of severity:
- A claim the paper no longer supports. If it is a substantive claim rather than a number, ask the researcher rather than rewriting it.
- A value that no longer matches the results.
- The novelty statement built on a finding that is no longer principal.
- The stated article type or length no longer fitting what the manuscript became, for example a letter that grew into a full article.
- Author list changes not reflected in the approval statement or the corresponding author details.
Mode C: apply suggested updates
Enumerate every comment, classify it as direct, interpretive, conflicting or out of scope, apply or propose, and account for every one including those not applied.
Supervisor comments on cover letters cluster into: "state the novelty more strongly" (usually means make it concrete, not louder), "explain why this journal" (the fit paragraph), and "too long" (cut the paper summary, which duplicates the abstract).
Mode D: resume
Report which required elements are present and which are missing, recover the novelty statement from the paper's conclusions, and ask only for what the manuscript cannot supply: the editor's name, the journal-fit reason, and the declarations.
Produce the revision
Emit the full letter, since it is short enough that showing all of it is clearer than showing a diff, and:
- Preserve the researcher's wording wherever it still holds.
- Annotate each change with a bracketed note or a comment saying why, for example
[UPDATED: journal-fit paragraph rewritten for Advanced Materials]. [TODO: ...]for every declaration, name or reason you could not obtain.- Keep it to one page.
Show it, then summarize the changes. In mode A, state explicitly that you checked for and removed all references to the previous journal.
Offer to write it out
Only after approval.
Hard rules
- Never invent a journal's scope, a recent paper in it, or an editor's name. No network access. Ask, or leave a marked placeholder.
- Never carry over a declaration without confirming it applies to the new journal.
- Never fabricate a declaration. These are legally and professionally consequential.
- Never invent or strengthen a claim.
- Never mention a previous rejection.
- Never emit an em dash.
- Never leave the previous journal's name anywhere in the letter.
- If nothing needs changing, say so and change nothing.