---
name: sci-cover-letter
description: Use to write the editor-facing cover letter for Science — a tight, significance-forward pitch that helps the editor decide in minutes whether to send the paper out for review.
---

# Cover Letter & Editor Pitch (sci-cover-letter)

## When to trigger

- Ready to submit and need the editor-facing letter.
- The current letter is a formality ("please find enclosed…") with no argument.
- You need to argue *broad significance* explicitly to survive triage.

## What the cover letter is for

Science editors triage fast. The letter must let an editor decide, in **under two minutes**, that the paper is plausibly broad enough to review. It is a **significance argument**, not a summary.

## Structure (≈ 250–400 words, one page)

1. **Opening claim (2–3 sentences).** The one-sentence advance (`sci-framing`) plus why it matters to a broad audience. Lead with the result, not the background.
2. **Why Science specifically (2–3 sentences).** Why this is general-interest, not specialist — what communities beyond your own will care and why now (`sci-framing` why-now trigger).
3. **What's new vs. prior work (2–3 sentences).** The decisive distinction from the closest prior papers, including any concurrent work. Pre-empt "isn't this known?".
4. **Format & logistics (short).** "We submit this as a Report/Research Article. The work has not been published and is not under consideration elsewhere."
5. **Optional: suggested/excluded reviewers**, competing interests, related submissions, and any embargo/press considerations.

## The significance paragraph test

The editor should be able to copy your second paragraph into a referee-invitation email. If it reads as specialist or hedged, rewrite it.

## Logistics to include

- [ ] Statement of originality and exclusivity (not published / not under review elsewhere).
- [ ] Manuscript type (Report vs Research Article) and rough length.
- [ ] Competing interests declaration (or "none").
- [ ] Related manuscripts (yours) in press/under review, if any.
- [ ] Suggested reviewers (a few) and opposed reviewers with brief reason, if applicable.
- [ ] Any prior submission/transfer history if relevant.

## Tone

- Confident, specific, quantified — but not grandiose. Editors discount "groundbreaking/unprecedented".
- No jargon walls; a chemistry editor should grasp a biology letter and vice versa.
- Short paragraphs; the whole letter fits on one page.


## Cover-letter pass for Science

Use this as a second-pass capability check. First lock the broad discovery claim, decisive evidence, uncertainty/limitations, and why the result belongs in a general-science weekly; then test whether the manuscript addresses general-science reviewers and editors who ask whether the result changes a broad field, is technically decisive, and can be understood outside the subdiscipline.

- **Primary move:** Make the letter a routing document: discovery, breadth, decisive evidence, policy/field implication, and compliance in one editor-facing argument.
- **Decision ledger:** return `claim / evidence / blocker / next edit` rows so the next pass can patch the manuscript directly.
- **Neighbor test:** compare against Nature for similar broad-scope novelty, PNAS for academy-wide breadth, specialist journals when the claim is field-internal; if the neighboring outlet has the stronger audience claim, recommend re-routing before polishing.
- **Verification floor:** before submission-ready advice, re-open `resources/official-source-map.md` for volatile rules and name the one unresolved fact that could change the recommendation.

## Output format

```
【One-line advance restated】 "..."
【Broad-significance paragraph】 reviewer-invitation-ready? yes/no
【Novelty vs closest prior/concurrent work】 stated? yes/no
【Manuscript type + length】 ...
【Logistics checklist】 originality / COI / suggested-opposed reviewers / related subs
【Next】 sci-submission
```

## Anti-patterns

- **Do not** summarize the abstract; argue significance instead.
- **Do not** use unsupported superlatives — quantify the advance.
- **Do not** omit the originality/exclusivity statement.
- **Do not** bury the hook below logistics; the first sentence carries the advance.