Editor's Advice

Presented below are suggestions from experienced editors who serve well-known international journals and established researchers with impressive publication records. This information could be helpful to researchers during the preparation, submission, revision, and publication of their manuscripts

1. What is the best way to prepare a cover letter for my submission?
Your cover letter to the editor-in-chief of the target journal is your opportunity to lobby on behalf of your manuscript. A good cover letter should explain to the editor why they should consider your manuscript for publication. The cover letter should be concise, emphasizing the novelty and importance of the study, and how it fits within the scope of the journal. There is no strict structure for a cover letter, but a well-written one usually includes the following:

1. An explanation of why the manuscript would make a good fit for the journal and be valuable to the journal’s target audience.
2. Answers to the questions raised by the research.
2. The originality and novelty of the manuscript.
3. Findings and major results of the study.
5. The main conclusion of the study.
6. A statement that the whole or any part of the manuscript has not been published or submitted elsewhere.
7. The statement that all authors agreed on the manuscript content and submitted it to the journal.

The “Instructions for Authors” or the “Guidelines for Authors” may provide specific guidelines about cover letters for some journals. Make sure your cover letter meets all journal requirements. Those who have been invited to submit a manuscript should specifically mention that in the cover letter.

2. When submitting my manuscript, why do I need to recommend/exclude reviewers?
In order to submit a manuscript to a journal, authors generally recommend (and sometimes exclude) a list of reviewers.

In general, reviewers who are suggested by authors are more likely to accept the review task and submit a more detailed review report, perhaps due to a good match in research interests. The reviewers suggested by authors have a better understanding of the authors’ research. However, journal editors do not always invite recommended reviewers.

In order to avoid potential research competition or conflicts of interest, journals offer authors the option of excluding certain researchers from reviewing their manuscripts. Authors should use this opportunity to notify journal editors about which researchers they would like to avoid.

3. After peer review, what decisions can the editor make?
Journal editors usually make the following suggestions based on comprehensive review comments after peer review in most scientific journals:

i. Accept
When a manuscript meets the journal’s requirements and expectations with regard to research scope, scientific soundness, technical writing, language expression, etc., the editor will generally accept it. If a manuscript is extraordinarily well prepared, it may be accepted directly without revision; in other cases, it may be subjected to 1 to 2 rounds of peer review and revision until there are no more comments from reviewers.

ii. Consider after minor revisions
Minor revisions can be made to a manuscript which largely meets the journal’s requirements and expectations, but has minor problems such as unclear expressions or missing information, to get it into a publishable state. This manuscript will likely be reconsidered by the editor after adequate revisions have been made.

iii. Consider after major revisions
The manuscript has potential as a contribution to the science of that field but suffers from problems such as unclear or ambiguous statements, missing experiments or data, etc. It is possible that the editor will reconsider this manuscript after substantial revisions and, if necessary, simple additional experiments are conducted.

iv. Reject and submit after revision
Reconsider after Major Revisions is not fundamentally different from this suggestion. A slight difference between the two is that problems in the rejected manuscripts would be more serious and would take longer for authors to address, e.g., repeating the analysis or part of the experiment. Although the editors recognize some value in the study, they are not overconfident that the authors will be able to address these issues in a timely manner. Perhaps editors would not mind if the authors submitted their manuscript elsewhere as well.

v. Reject
The editor will probably reject a manuscript without asking for resubmission if the manuscript is deemed to be rather low in terms of the quality of presentation or contains fatal flaws in the experimental design, or if the authors fail to address reviewers’ concerns. It is a fact that journal editors often make such a decision without submitting an article for review if a manuscript does not fit the journal’s scope.

4. If I disagree with a reviewer’s comments, what should I do?
It is quite normal to experience this. If you disagree with any of the reviewers’ comments and you think you are right, you may ask for reconsideration by submitting a cogently argued rebuttal letter to the editor, which should clearly explain your arguments and, if necessary, what modifications you have made to reduce any misunderstanding. Never ignore review comments or attack a reviewer personally. The journal’s editors will make a decision based on both the reviewers’ comments and the authors’ responses based on their expertise.