| name | cc-cover-letter |
| description | Use when drafting the cover letter (and optional presubmission inquiry) for a Cancer Cell (Cell Press) submission — framing significance, fit, novelty, and suggested/excluded reviewers. It writes the letter; it does not edit the manuscript itself. |
Cover Letter & Presubmission Inquiry (cc-cover-letter)
When to trigger
- Preparing the cover letter for full submission
- Considering a Cell Press presubmission inquiry to gauge fit
- Need to suggest or exclude reviewers
- Need to state exclusivity / prior-communication / preprint status
Presubmission inquiry (optional, fit-saving)
Cell Press allows a short editorial inquiry before full submission. Use it to test fit when uncertain:
- 1 short paragraph: the central finding and why it suits Cancer Cell.
- Attach the abstract/Summary and a key figure or graphical abstract.
- Ask directly whether the editors would welcome a full submission.
Cover-letter structure (full submission)
- Opening — addressed to the editor; manuscript title and that it is submitted to Cancer Cell.
- The advance in 2–3 sentences — the mechanism and the translational relevance, in plain language a broad cancer audience grasps.
- Why Cancer Cell — fit with the journal's mechanism + translational scope and interest to its readership.
- Evidence strength — note the orthogonal validation (cells + in vivo + human/patient data) that supports the claim.
- Novelty vs. closest prior work — one sentence on what is new and why now.
- Declarations — original, not under consideration elsewhere; preprint status; any prior editorial communication or transfer; related manuscripts in press.
- Reviewer suggestions / exclusions — see below.
- Close — corresponding author and contact.
Reviewers
- Suggest several genuine experts (different institutions; no recent collaborators, co-authors, mentors/mentees, or same-institution colleagues — avoid conflicts).
- Exclude direct competitors only with a brief, professional reason.
- Keep suggestions current and reachable; do not pad with marginal names.
Calibrate the pitch
- Match claims to evidence exactly as in the manuscript (no extra promises in the letter).
- Lead with the discovery; do not bury it under background.
- Keep it to roughly one page; respectful, specific, not promotional fluff.
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- Overstating impact beyond what the manuscript shows
- A generic letter that never says why Cancer Cell specifically
- Suggesting close collaborators or same-institution reviewers
- Excluding many competitors without justification (reads defensively)
- Omitting preprint or prior-communication disclosure
- A multi-page essay restating the abstract
Cover-letter pass for Cancer Cell
Use this as a second-pass capability check. First lock the cancer context, mechanism, model system, validation chain, and translational boundary; then test whether the manuscript addresses cancer-biology reviewers who expect mechanistic oncology, translational relevance, and strong multi-modal validation.
- Primary move: Make the letter a routing document: contribution, fit, compliance, conflicts, and the single reason the editor should send the paper to review.
- Decision ledger: return
claim / evidence / blocker / next edit rows so the next pass can patch the manuscript directly.
- Neighbor test: compare against Cell for broader biology, Nature Cancer for oncology breadth, Clinical Cancer Research for clinical translation; 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
【Inquiry or full submission】which
【Advance (2–3 sentences)】...
【Why Cancer Cell】...
【Evidence strength line】orthogonal validation: ...
【Declarations】originality / preprint / prior comms
【Reviewers】suggested (conflict-free): [...]; excluded: [...]
【Length / tone】~1 page, claims match paper? Y/N
【Next step】cc-submission
