1 Gutaur

Cover Letter For Resubmission Of Research Paper

By Roy F. Baumeister

Dear Sir, Madame, or Other:
Enclosed is our latest version of Ms # 85-02-22-RRRRR, that is, the re-re-re-revised revision of our paper. Choke on it. We have again rewritten the entire manuscript from start to finish. We even changed the goddamn running head! Hopefully we have suffered enough by now to satisfy even you and your bloodthirsty reviewers.

I shall skip the usual point-by-point description of every single change we made in response to the critiques. After all, it is fairly clear that your reviewers are less interested in details of scientific procedure than in working out their personality problems and sexual frustrations by seeking some kind of demented glee in the sadistic and arbitrary exercise of tyrannical power over helpless authors like ourselves who happen to fall into their clutches. We do understand that, in view of the misanthropic psychopaths you have on your editorial board, you need to keep sending them papers, for if they weren’t reviewing manuscripts they’d probably be out mugging old ladies or clubbing baby seals to death. Still, from this batch of reviewers, C was clearly the most hostile, and we request that you not ask him or her to review this revision. Indeed, we have mailed letter bombs to four or five people we suspected of being reviewer C, so if you send the manuscript back to them the review process could be unduly delayed.

Some of the reviewers’ comments we couldn’t do anything about. For example, if (as review C suggested) several of my recent ancestors were indeed drawn from other species, it is too late to change that. Other suggestions were implemented, however, and the paper has improved and benefited. Thus, you suggested that we shorten the manuscript by 5 pages, and we were able to accomplish this very effectively by altering the margins and printing the paper in a different font with a smaller typeface. We agree with you that the paper is much better this way.

One perplexing problem was dealing with suggestions #13-28 by Reviewer B. As you may recall (that is, if you even bother reading the reviews before doing your decision letter), that reviewer listed 16 works that he/she felt we should cite in this paper. These were on a variety of different topics, none of which had any relevance to our work that we could see. Indeed, one was an essay on the Spanish-American War from a high school literary magazine. The only common thread was that all 16 were by the same author, presumably someone whom Reviewer B greatly admires and feels should be more widely cited. To handle this, we have modified the Introduction and added, after the review of relevant literature, a subsection entitled “Review of Irrelevant Literature” that discusses these articles and also duly addresses some of the more asinine suggestions in the other reviews.

We hope that you will be pleased with this revision and will finally recognize how urgently deserving of publication this work is. If not, then you are an unscrupulous, depraved monster with no shred of human decency. You ought to be in a cage. May whatever heritage you come from be the butt of the next round of ethnic jokes. If you do accept it, however, we wish to thank you for your patience and wisdom throughout this process and to express our appreciation of your scholarly insights. To repay you, we would be happy to review some manuscripts for you; please send us the next manuscript that any of these reviewers submits to your journal.

Assuming you accept this paper, we would also like to add a footnote acknowledging your help with this manuscript and to point out that we liked the paper much better the way we originally wrote it but you held the editorial shotgun to our heads and forced us to chop, reshuffle, restate, hedge, expand, shorten, and in general convert a meaty paper into stir-fried vegetables. We couldn’t, or wouldn’t, have done it without your input.


Posted in Academic Humour, Adjuncts (guest posts), Journals, Parody

Tagged anger, funny, journals, letters, peer review, reviewer 3


Revised/Rejected Paper Editing


Has your manuscript been rejected? Have you have been invited to resubmit your paper after revision? Don’t worry: Every researcher faces this at least once, and both scenarios can actually make your study stronger. Our journal experts will ensure that your manuscript is thoroughly rewritten to meet the expectations of journal reviewers, even if you have used the editing services of another company for earlier drafts. Upon completion, your manuscript will be absolutely ready to be resubmitted.

Our Step-by-Step Approach

Send us

Your original manuscript as submitted to the journal, the reviewer comments, a revised manuscript as per reviewer instructions, and a draft of your response to reviewer comments if you are resubmitting to the same journal.

We’ll rewrite

The manuscript content, reformat the manuscript (if needed), rewrite responses to referee comments in line with edited manuscript, write a cover letter for revised/new submission, and provide a report on whether all comments have been attended to.

You’ll address

Concerns raised by Enago’s editor, check the rewritten response to referee comments, and review the cover letter.

Enago finalizes

The manuscript, cover letter, response to reviewer, and report, after clarifying the author comments and making minor revisions if necessary.

Advantages of the Revised/Rejected Service

Two rounds of editing ensure that your revised paper adequately addresses all reviewer feedback

Revisions appear in line with the comments in your manuscript, along with edited responses to referee feedback (depending on whether you are resubmitting the same journal or a new one)

Your cover letter will expertly detail the significance of your research and outline how this revision was improved (in the case of manuscript resubmission)

What Do You Get?

Revised manuscript

Final report

Cover letter

Delivery and Pricing

Upload your manuscript now, and we'll get back to you within 3 business hours.

word countround 1 deadlineauthor check deadlineround 2 deadlinePrice
0-20003 business days2 business days2 business days$0.10/word
2001-50003-5 business days2 business days
5001-100005-8 business days3 business days3 business days
above 10001on request

Client Success Stories


I had no idea how to reply to reviewer comments. Thanks to your reviewer though who helped me with replying to reviewer comments and revising text to reviewers’ satisfaction. I appreciate it very much that you revised my manuscript so well. The expert helped me revise the entire paper and elaborated on my answers to reviewers. I am very happy!

T. K. - Doctor, Kyoto Second Red Cross Hospital

I had faced many rejections before I came to Enago! A subject expert helped me rewrite my manuscript and made sure all aspects such as were meeting reviewer requirements. I saved a lot of time and effort using. Thank you Enago!

Y. O. - Fujita Health University Hospital

I received about 30 comments from reviewers. I had no idea what to do and how to answer the reviewers. I choose Enago’s services and they took care of all the needs. After the two rounds that are provided in this service, my document was made very smooth. Recommended!

H. O. - Doctor, Almeida hospital

Leave a Comment


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *