In order to help authors to write a clear and concise cover letter, we provide a cover letter plate here.
Address to the JMS Editors in Chief:
Dear Prof. Cui and Prof. Qiu,
Paragraph 1: Overview (Article title, type, design, major finding)
"We are pleased to submit our manuscript entitled: "XXX", for consideration as a [JMS article type – for instance, Oiginal article or Review]. The novelty/highlights of this paper is/are as follows: "XXXXXXXXXXXXX".
Paragraph 2: Current submission and prior presentations disclosure
The Journal seeks to publish work that is "new, true, and will change practice" in the field of study. This disclosure helps ensure that the work we are considering is original, and not substantially derivative of prior work. This disclosure helps us avoid inappropriate utilization of reviewer time, as these issues will usually be uncovered during the review process – with flags raised about why the authors did not initially share this information.
"This manuscript has not been previously published and is not under consideration in the same or substantially similar form in any other peer-reviewed media." "Other manuscripts from this study include: XXX, YYYY, ZZZZ, with an additional manuscript under preparation on XXX topic." If relevant: "We presented an earlier version of the manuscript as a poster/plenary/workshop at the [conference name] in [location], in 20XX."
Paragraph 3: Authorship and conflicts
Acknowledge authorship and conflicts appropriately. According to the guides from the Committee on Publication Ethics(http://publicationethics.org/files/u2/2003pdf12.pdf): Authorship credit should be based on 1) substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; 2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and 3) final approval of the version to be published. Authors should meet conditions 1, 2, and 3.
"All authors listed have contributed sufficiently to the project to be included as authors, and all those who are qualified to be authors are listed in the author byline. To the best of our knowledge, no conflict of interest, financial or other, exists. We have included acknowledgements, conflicts of interest, and funding sources after the discussion.
Paragraph 4: Potential reviewers
If your manuscript is sent out for review, 2-3 peer reviewers will review your work. Of those reviewers, 1 may be a reviewer that you have suggested – because you may have insight into reviewers who can judge your work objectively, in appropriate context. Please suggest 3 reviewers (name, institution, email, expertise).
Criteria: Suggested reviewers should NOT be at your institution,and be preferred outside your country (or regions)and should have some expertise in your content area/method. You should NOT have substantially worked with the reviewer in the past few years, and in particular, this should not be someone who has already reviewed or otherwise contributed to the manuscript. To the best of your knowledge, reviewers should not have conflicts (financial, personal) which would interfere with their objectivity.
"We'd like to recommend the following scholars as potential reviewers."
"Reviewer 1: Dr/Prof. XXX; Institution: XXX; Email: XXX; Expertise: XXX "
"Reviewer 2: Dr/Prof. XXX; Institution: XXX; Email: XXX; Expertise: XXX "
"Reviewer 3: Dr/Prof. XXX; Institution: XXX; Email: XXX; Expertise: XXX "
Contact information (title, group affiliation, physical address, email, phone, fax)
Signature of all authors