Nature cover letter 怎么 写

1. 前言：

上期我们简单介绍了下Cover Letter的基本写法，对其格式和内容进行了分析，本期结合实例对Cover Letter的具体内容进行解析，希望对大家有所帮助。所采用的实例由研友charlotte推荐，摘自Professor Shobhana Narasimhan的课件。

相关内容链接：

论文投稿系列之Cover Letter写法（一）

2. 实例欣赏：

A Cover Letter to Nature that worked.

3. 逐句解析：

一般Cover Letter为2-4段，长度大概控制在一页左右。

A. 第一段

第一段简明扼要地告诉编辑：你要干什么？一般主要指出论文标题，论文类型，要投稿的期刊名称。

本例中第二句话值得大家学习：

I outline briefly below the significant findings reported in this manuscript and reasons why this manuscript deserves serious consideration for publication as a Letter to Nature.

作为编辑，每天收到的稿件无数，他最希望的就是能够从稿件的汪洋大海中挑出最适合发表的内容，所以如果你在开头告诉他我这个Cover Letter后面主要介绍了“我这个文章到底为什么值得发表在这个期刊上”，编辑会很开心。因为这样就变得很省事了，如果你说的理由能够打动编辑，OK，可以进行下一步；如果没有办法打动，那么直接打回去。

当然，实际上大家都知道，Cover Letter后面的1-2段都会讲到这个问题，但是你直接提出来会显得很自信也很专业。

B. 第二段

1) 开门见山

The manuscript addresses the origin of "fragility" in a glass forming supercooled liquid, in terms of quantifiable features of the potential energy landscape of the liquid.

第二段第一句话就开门见山地告诉编辑：这篇文章的核心内容是什么（主要是三个关键词：fragility, quantifiable features, energy landscape ）。“直接了当”是给编辑最好的礼物！

2) 背景介绍

接下来的几句话，作者简单地解释了fragility是什么东西，为什么这个东西很重要。

The fragility measures...

Given the vast range of materials that form glasses, the idea of fragility has served as a very useful organising principle, although without a solid foundation of theoretical understanding.

作者的这种逻辑关系值得大家好好学习：1) 首次大体向编辑说明我这篇文章主要讲啥；2）然后再为编辑介绍一些基本背景知识以及研究的空白点。实际上，这样的Cover Letter哪怕不是给一个专业的编辑来看，给一个非相关领域的人来看，也能够很清楚地知道作者在说些什么。而相反，如果第二段一开始就直接进行背景介绍，会显得比较突兀和生硬。

在介绍完fragility之后，从Till recently到a quantitative description,作者进一步地阐述了energy landscape和quantitative description的背景。

3) 亮点陈述

介绍完背景之后，作者将文章的亮点摆了出来：

The present manuscript exploits this recent progress to develop and verify a quantitative theory of fragility。.

我做了啥：I study a... I construct...（对于这种以“I”为第一人称的写法，小编不知道好还是不好，不重点推荐）

得到了哪些显著的成就：Two significant outcomes of the analysis are: (a)...(b)...（这个是绝对要重点推荐的，有什么亮点要摆出来，最好一条一条清清楚楚明明白白地摆出来。只要过得硬，编辑就有很大可能性会让你过。不要藏着掖着，让编辑带着显微镜来找亮点）

最后是Sincerely以及署名，上期已经说过了，不重复！

备注：由于小编水平有限，没有发过这么高端的论文，解读过程中难免有些不当之处，欢迎方家指正！

更多精彩内容，请大家关注微信公众号“研之成理”（ID:rationalscience）或者微信公众号“科研共进社”。

Cover letters are a ubiquitous but hidden part of the publication process. We share our thoughts on the effective and efficient crafting of these letters and their role in our editorial decision-making.

Cover letters highlighting a study’s conclusions and sharing details relevant to the review process are important parts of manuscript submissions, even if they are only ever read by authors and editors. The writing of these letters can, however, seem like an additional burden. In the interest of helping our authors write these letters, we’ve put together thoughts from the editors at Nature Geoscience.

First off, our decisions to proceed to review are based only on an assessment of the broader relevance, novelty, and importance of a study’s main conclusions, following a careful reading of a manuscript and relevant background literature. Manuscripts need to stand on their own — cover letters can provide editors with valuable context, but our decisions are not based on their content. They can, for example, clarify whether a study matches the journal’s scope, especially if this is not readily apparent after a fair reading of the manuscript. Outlining the place of conclusions relative to open, important scientific questions or debates within research communities is also helpful.

Don’t fret over how to address your letter — a simple ‘Dear Editor’ is all that’s required. They can be addressed to specific editors, especially if you have had a prior interaction. We always aim to match submissions to editors based on subject expertise, but this is not always guaranteed (though editors frequently consult with each other). While it ultimately won’t affect our editorial decisions, try to ensure that the letter is addressed to the correct journal before you submit. In some instances, this may not be possible — like when a manuscript is transferred from another Nature Portfolio journal. We of course recognize that manuscripts may have been previously submitted to other journals, but do keep in mind that studies must only be submitted to one journal at a time and our scope may be different.

Keep it concise. This is your chance to have a casual conversation about your work with the editor and a single page is typically enough. Don’t worry too much about grammar or tone, we appreciate that many of our authors are not writing in their first language and, as with our reading of manuscripts, we always focus on the scientific content and not the writing style. It’s fine to be excited (we appreciate you’re talking about the end result of a lot of hard work), but keep hyperbole to a minimum. It is a lot more useful to explain why a study represents an important scientific finding instead of repeatedly declaring it so — again, the novelty and advance of your study should stand on its own. If the work has broader societal or policy relevance beyond the geosciences, that can also be discussed. Keep the focus on the study itself and not the resumes of the authors.

Cover letters are especially important for initial manuscript submissions, but we also strongly encourage their inclusion with resubmissions. They do not have to be long but should bring to the attention of the editor any confidential issues that aren’t suitable for the response to reviewers’ comments.

References to other studies are not required, but can be useful in some circumstances. Cover letters are the right place to explain how the current study relates to other published or (especially) yet-to-be published work by you or your co-authors, especially in light of our dual publication policies. Please be up-front if the publication of your study will be contingent on publication of another. If this is the case, it is still fine to submit the manuscript but we might ask that the associated manuscript be included in the files sent to reviewers. We consider novelty when choosing which papers to send to review, so a brief discussion of other studies with apparently similar conclusions might be appropriate if the overlap is substantial.

Recommend a few relevant reviewers that cover the range of topics and methods in the study. We may or may not use these recommendations if the paper is sent to review, but it can help expedite the review process regardless. These suggested reviewers should ideally not have published previously with the authors of your study, or at least not for some time, and should not be affiliated with the same institutions as any of the authors on the manuscript.

Feel free to exclude reviewers but keep it reasonable. There is no obligation to provide an explanation for these exclusions, especially if only a handful of names are included. However, we do discourage the wholesale exclusion of entire lab groups and their alumni.

If choosing the option of double-blind peer-review, all identifying information about the authors, including the authorship list, acknowledgments, and author contributions statement, should be removed from the main text and pasted in the cover letter instead.

There is no one-size-fits-all approach to writing cover letters, but the most important thing we hope to see as editors is clear enthusiasm and excitement for your work.