Guides · Submitting and peer review

Cover letter to the editor: what to state for the desk screen

A cover letter reaches an editor who is deciding whether the paper fits the journal and has a realistic chance after review. Editorials from marketing journals name the criteria behind that decision: fit with the journal's positioning, a clear contribution, generalizable findings and managerial relevance. No source here studies cover letters themselves, so the most defensible use of the letter is to state plainly how the paper meets those criteria.

What the editor decides at the desk

At the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, the editor reads each new submission to judge two things: whether it fits the journal's positioning, and whether it has a viable chance of acceptance within a few revision rounds. Papers that fail either test are desk rejected, which the editor put at typically 40–60% of submissions. At the Journal of Marketing, about a third of submissions in 2013–2015 never went to review.^[1][2]

The editorials cited here describe screening criteria; none of them studies cover letters. The advice below therefore translates what editors say they screen for into what a letter should state. It does not report evidence that a cover letter changes the decision.^[1][2][3]

State the fit, with reference to the journal's own work

Palmatier names poor fit as one of the two main causes of desk rejection. His examples are behavioural studies that are not linked to performance outcomes or managerial interventions, and pure scale-development or methods papers. Wang likewise reports declining manuscripts that do not fit his journal's particular perspective and scope.^[1][4]

Palmatier advises authors new to a journal to model their paper on recent articles there that use a similar design, and notes that papers citing none of the journal's work tend to be poorly tied to its research. In the letter, name the line of work in the journal that your paper builds on. If you cannot, the fit problem lies in the paper, and the letter will not fix it.^[1]

Say what the paper changes

The other main cause of desk rejection is insufficient contribution. Wang lists common mistaken beliefs behind it: that a large model with many paths, a long list of hypotheses, being the first study of a topic or setting, or applying a famous theory in a new field is a contribution by itself.^[1][3]

State the contribution as a change in understanding. Whetten's reviewers ask what is new and so what, and MacInnis distinguishes contributions that envision new ideas from those that explicate, relate or debate existing ones. A letter that says which kind of contribution the paper makes, and what readers should think differently afterwards, answers the question the editor is already asking.^[5][6]

Address generalizability and relevance directly

At the Journal of Marketing, the foremost reason for desk rejection was lack of generalizability, typified by a study of one company, one market and one segment. The same editor expects implications that are generalizable and managerially actionable. He also describes a reject-and-resubmit decision at the desk for papers that show promise for new theory, generalizable results or new lines of research.^[2]

If your data come from a single setting, say in the letter what general theory or mechanism the setting illustrates, and state the managerial implication in a sentence. Wang similarly asks that a contribution show its relevance to business by answering the so-what and who-cares questions.^[2][4]

If the paper tests a known effect in a new setting

Testing known effects or theories again in a different country or product category is a named reason that papers fail at the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. Whetten's standard for such work is that something about the new setting should give reason to expect the theory not to hold there, so that the study teaches something about the theory itself. If that reason exists, put it in the letter, because it is your case for sending the paper to review.^[1][5]

Keep the letter consistent with the paper

The desk decision is a judgement of the manuscript: Palmatier describes the editor evaluating the paper itself for fit and its chance of acceptance. Wang adds that an introduction built on vague questions, without justified objectives, leaves readers unclear about what the authors intend to achieve. Write the contribution statement for the introduction first, then reuse its substance in the letter so that the two say the same thing.^[1][4]

References

1. Robert W. Palmatier (2016). Editorial: the past, present, and future of JAMS. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science.
2. V. Kumar (2016). My Reflections on Publishing in Journal of Marketing. Journal of Marketing.
3. Cheng Lu Wang (2022). Editorial – The misassumptions about contributions. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 16(1), 1–2.
4. Cheng Lu Wang (2025). Editorial: Demonstrating contributions through storytelling. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing.
5. David A. Whetten (1989). What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution?. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 490–495.
6. Deborah J. MacInnis (2011). A Framework for Conceptual Contributions in Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 136–154.

Bibliographic details only. Follow the DOI to read each study at its publisher.