How to Write an Econometrica Cover Letter (With Template)
Econometrica asks for a cover letter only when it contains information relevant to the review process. Here is what that note can contain, the related-work disclosure, the earlier-rejection explanation, any exemption request, and a copyable template you can adapt.
Readiness scan
Find out if this manuscript is ready to submit.
Run the Free Readiness Scan before you submit. Catch the issues editors reject on first read.
How to use this page well
These pages work best when they behave like tools, not essays. Use the quick structure first, then apply it to the exact journal and manuscript situation.
Question | What to do |
|---|---|
Use this page for | A working artifact you can actually apply to the manuscript or response package. |
Start with | Fill the template with real manuscript-specific details instead of leaving it generic. |
Common mistake | Copying the structure without tailoring the logic to the actual submission. |
Best next step | Use the artifact once, then cut anything that does not affect the decision. |
Quick answer: An Econometrica cover letter is not a one-page persuasive pitch like the cover letters other journals expect. Its instructions say a cover letter should be included only if it contains information relevant to the review process.
Your note should cover only what applies, in a few lines: disclose related work you have submitted elsewhere, explain how the paper differs from a previously rejected Econometrica submission, state any exemption request, and, if you wish, confirm the exclusive, original submission. The persuasion happens in your introduction, not the note.
This page is for authors preparing an Econometrica submission who want to get the cover note right. It is deliberately different from the Econometrica submission guide, which covers page caps, fees, and editorial culture. Here the single question is the cover note: what it must contain, what it must not, and how Econometrica's "only if relevant" rule changes the standard advice you have read for other journals.
From our manuscript review practice
Econometrica asks for a cover letter only when it contains information relevant to the review process. The note's real job is disclosure: related work submitted elsewhere, how the paper differs from a previously rejected Econometrica submission, and any exemption request.
Why Econometrica's cover note works differently
The instinct most authors bring from medical or natural-science journals is wrong here. At many journals the cover letter is a one-page argument for why the paper deserves review. At Econometrica, the Econometric Society's submission instructions state that a cover letter should be included only if it contains information relevant to the review process. The handling Co-Editor reads your introduction and proofs to judge the contribution. The note is for disclosure, not salesmanship.
So the right question is not "how do I make my note persuasive?" It is "what does the Co-Editor legitimately need to know that the manuscript itself does not already tell them?" The instructions name three categories, and with the exclusive-submission line they map directly to the template below.
Econometrica submission readiness check before you upload, so the disclosure items in your note match what the manuscript actually claims.
What an Econometrica cover note can contain
Note element | What to write | Why the Co-Editor needs it |
|---|---|---|
Related-work disclosure | Details of any related work you have submitted elsewhere | The instructions require the details; hidden parallel submissions are an integrity problem |
Earlier-Econometrica explanation | If the paper relates to a previously rejected Econometrica submission, why it is sufficiently different to warrant independent review | Lets the Co-Editor see continuity with a past decision |
Exemption requests | Any request for exemption from the Editorial Procedures and Policies, stated explicitly at initial submission | Exemptions cannot be requested later in the process |
Exclusive-submission declaration | The work is original and not under consideration elsewhere | The originality bar is a publication condition |
Notice what is absent: no abstract restatement, no paragraph on why the result matters, no journal flattery. Those belong in the manuscript. A note that argues significance is reading as if Econometrica wanted a persuasive letter, which it does not.
Copyable Econometrica cover note template
Use this as a structure to adapt, not a script to paste unchanged. Fill in every bracketed field before you submit.
Dear Editor,
We submit the enclosed manuscript, "[PAPER TITLE]," for consideration at
Econometrica.
Related and prior work. [Describe any related paper by the same authors
currently under review elsewhere, OR write "We have no related work under
review at another journal."] [State whether the paper relates to a previously
rejected Econometrica submission and why it is sufficiently different to
warrant independent review, OR write "This paper does not relate to a
previous Econometrica submission."]
Declarations. This manuscript reports original work that has not been
published and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere. All
authors have read and approved this submission, and a replication package
will be provided prior to acceptance for all empirical and computational
results, in line with the Econometric Society data and code policy.
Sincerely,
[CORRESPONDING AUTHOR NAME]
[on behalf of all authors]That template is intentionally short. If yours grows past a screen, you are probably re-explaining the paper, which the note should never do.
The verbatim declaration block
Two sentences carry the legal and editorial weight of the entire note. Copy them, then check that they are true before you submit.
This manuscript reports original work that has not been published and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere. All authors have read and approved this submission.
The first sentence is the non-duplication and exclusive-submission declaration: it asserts the manuscript is not under review at another journal. The second is the all-authors-approved line. If a related paper by the same authors is under review somewhere, the exclusive-submission sentence is not false on its own, but you must add the related-work disclosure described above. Econometrica treats undisclosed parallel work as an integrity matter.
What a strong contribution framing sounds like
Because Econometrica discourages the persuasive note, the framing that would have gone in the letter belongs in your introduction. Authors often ask what that opening should sound like. Here is the contrast: avoid the version that only describes an application,
and use the version that names a methodological gap.
A weak introduction opening describes an application that an applied field journal could publish:
Don't open with this.
"We investigate the effect of policy X on outcome Y using a difference-in-differences design and find a statistically significant effect."
A strong opening names a methodological gap and shows the method changes a conclusion:
Use this instead.
"We show that the standard difference-in-differences estimator is inconsistent under staggered adoption with heterogeneous effects, and we propose an estimator that is consistent under those conditions. We characterize its limiting distribution and apply it to policy X, where the corrected estimate reverses the sign of the conventional one."
The weak version describes an application; an applied field journal could publish it. The strong version names a methodological gap, states what is new, and shows the method changes a conclusion. That is the altitude the Co-Editor is reading for, and it is why the persuasive work belongs in the manuscript rather than in the cover note.
Article-type handling: full paper vs correction or comment
Econometrica is not single-type. Alongside full papers, the Econometric Society journals accept short corrections and comments on papers previously published in the relevant journal, and the instructions describe how they differ. The bar differs by type:
- An Article is judged on a self-contained methodological or theoretical contribution at the top-5 standard.
- A correction is a very short article that identifies a significant error or flaw in a published paper; a comment is more substantial and may offer a solution, or a substantial generalization or improvement that directly builds on the published paper. Submitting either requires contacting at least one of the original authors, and the correspondence goes with the submission.
Picking the wrong type is a quiet desk-rejection risk: a comment dressed as a full paper reads as thin, and a full paper filed as a correction reads as incomplete.
Mandatory statements the Co-Editor expects
Beyond the four disclosure categories, an Econometrica submission carries several required statements. Some live in the system rather than the note, but the note should confirm they are handled.
Statement | Where it lives | Note action |
|---|---|---|
Exclusive / original submission | Cover note | Confirm verbatim |
Competing interests / funding | Manuscript + system | Confirm disclosed |
Data and code availability | Replication package before acceptance | Confirm package will be provided |
Experimental instructions (since 2026) | Submission, for experimental papers | Confirm included if applicable |
Authorship responsibility statement (since 2026) | Accepted multi-author papers | Note that it will be supplied |
Two mechanical facts shape the note. Submission routes through the Econometric Society's own intake at Editorial Express, with a submission fee of $125 for regular members and $50 for student members; membership is required. The manuscript itself must respect the 45-page limit (including references and appendices), a separate 25-page supplemental appendix, and a 150-word abstract, so do not use the note to argue for an over-length exception. Length exceptions are emailed to the Editor before submission, not requested in the cover note.
On reviewer and referee suggestions: the Econometric Society's published instructions do not ask for suggested referees or suggested co-editors, so do not pad the note with 3 to 5 referees nobody requested. The handling Co-Editor selects the referees, and your guess at who they will pick adds nothing. If you genuinely have a conflict to flag, state it as a disclosure, not as a positive suggestion.
A short cover letter is not required at Econometrica beyond the cover note's disclosure items, which is the opposite of journals that demand a one-page editorial argument. Two related points authors miss.
First, preprint and working-paper disclosure: economics circulates working papers heavily, so if your paper is posted as a preprint on SSRN, arXiv, NBER, or a working-paper series, disclose the preprint link in the note so the editorial office can match it; an undisclosed circulating version that surfaces later reads as concealment.
Second, reviewer expectations: because the Co-Editor selects referees, the urgency and significance argument that other journals expect in a cover letter has no place here, so state it in the introduction, where the referees who verify your proofs will actually weigh it.
In our pre-submission review work with Econometrica submissions
In our pre-submission review work with Econometrica submissions, the cover note is rarely where a paper dies, but it is where avoidable friction starts. Across the economics manuscripts we pre-screen for Econometrica and its top-5 siblings, three named patterns recur, and each maps to a specific manuscript component the handling Co-Editor checks.
The persuasive-letter import. The single most common cover-note error in Econometrica submissions is writing the medical-journal-style one-page persuasive letter. Authors restate the abstract, argue significance, and praise the journal, all in a note the instructions explicitly discourage. The cost is not a rejection; it is that the author has spent effort on a document the Co-Editor skims while the introduction (the component that actually carries the significance argument) is left underbuilt.
When we review an Econometrica draft, we move the significance framing out of the note and into the first two pages of the introduction, where the proofs and identification logic can back it up.
The undisclosed related submission. We repeatedly see Econometrica cover notes that omit a companion paper by the same authors under review at a field journal, or a prior Econometrica review of an earlier version. Both are exactly the "information relevant to the review process" the instructions ask for.
The risk component is the integrity record, not the methods section: an undisclosed parallel submission discovered later is far more damaging to the authors than a disclosed one. In review we cross-check the references and the authors' recent working papers against the disclosure block, because a missing companion-paper disclosure is the kind of omission that looks deliberate even when it was an oversight.
The mismatched co-editor suggestion. The published instructions do not ask for co-editor suggestions, but where a submission form does ask, a recurring pattern in Econometrica submissions is suggesting the two most famous co-editors rather than the two whose fields match the paper's methodological contribution. A structural empirical paper that suggests two pure-theory co-editors signals that the authors have not located their own contribution.
The component this exposes is the methods section and the identification strategy: if the authors cannot name the right field for their paper, the Co-Editor reads it as uncertainty about what the paper is. When we pre-screen and a form asks for a co-editor suggestion, we match it to the actual estimator, proof, or identification result, and we flag any case where the suggested field and the methods section disagree.
A fourth, quieter pattern sits underneath all three: authors treat the note as the place to compensate for a contribution that is not yet visible in the manuscript. It never works. If the proofs, identification argument, and robustness package do not carry the top-5 claim on their own, no cover note rescues them. The note's only job is clean disclosure; the paper does the persuading. An Econometrica cover note and fit check catches the disclosure gaps and the co-editor mismatch before the Co-Editor sees them, and it tests whether the introduction carries the contribution the note is tempted to oversell.
From the Co-Editor's side of the desk
Picture the handling Co-Editor opening the submission. Econometrica editors screen the cover note only for disclosure items, not for persuasion: is there related or prior work, does the paper follow an earlier rejection, is it exclusive. We read the note first, but only for a few seconds. Then we go straight to the introduction.
A note that argues significance reads as noise during that scan; a note that hides a companion paper reads as a problem the moment we find it later. The author who helps us most is the one whose note is short, honest, and correctly routed, so we can spend our attention on the proofs and identification rather than on untangling the submission package.
When the cover note becomes a risk, not a help
The cover note is usually harmless, but it carries two real downside risks. The first is the disclosure trap: a note that omits a related companion paper or a prior Econometrica review converts an oversight into something that looks deliberate when the editorial office finds it later.
The second is the over-selling trap: a note that argues significance at length signals that the authors do not trust the manuscript to make its own case, which is the opposite of the impression a top-5 submission wants to leave. If you are unsure whether your note helps or hurts, the safe default at Econometrica is shorter and more factual, never longer and more persuasive.
Common mistakes that trigger cover-note friction
- Writing a persuasive page when the instructions discourage it. State disclosures; argue in the introduction.
- Restating the abstract in the note. The Co-Editor already has the abstract.
- Padding with suggested referees nobody requested. Keep the note to the disclosure items.
- Omitting a related companion paper under review elsewhere. Disclose it.
- Promising data later but never confirming the package will meet the Econometric Society data and code policy.
Submit If / Think Twice If
Send the note as-is if:
- the note is a few lines covering the related-work disclosure, any earlier-rejection explanation, any exemption request, and the exclusive-submission line
- the type of submission (full paper, correction, or comment) matches the manuscript's length and ambition
- every disclosure in the note is true and checkable against your other working papers and any prior Econometrica review
- the persuasive significance argument lives in the introduction, not the note
Think twice before submitting if:
- the cover note runs longer than a screen because it restates the abstract or argues significance the manuscript should carry on its own
- a related companion paper by the same authors is under review elsewhere and the note does not disclose it
- the manuscript leans on the 25-page supplemental appendix to carry essential proofs or identification logic that should be in the main text
- the contribution reads as a reduced-form application that an applied field journal would publish, which no cover note can elevate
If any of the second list applies, fix the manuscript before the note. Run an Econometrica readiness and fit check to separate a disclosure problem from a contribution problem before you upload.
Readiness check
Run the scan to see how your manuscript scores on these criteria.
See score, top issues, and what to fix before you submit.
What to read next
How this page was reviewed
We reviewed the Econometric Society's Econometrica submission instructions, its editorial procedures and policies, the data-and-code availability policy, and the 2025 fee update, then cross-checked the cover-note guidance against patterns from Manusights pre-submission review work on economics manuscripts. Source limitation: this page uses public Econometric Society materials and anonymized pre-submission review patterns; we did not inspect private Econometrica editorial decisions, and we do not name any current editor because rosters change and the journal's own editorial page is the only reliable source for who is handling submissions today.
Last verified: 2026-10-09 against Econometric Society submission instructions and data-and-code policy.
Frequently asked questions
No. Econometrica's instructions say a cover letter should be included only if it contains information relevant to the review process. That means details of related work submitted elsewhere, an explanation of why the submission is sufficiently different from a previously rejected Econometrica submission to warrant independent review, and any request for exemption from the journal's Editorial Procedures and Policies, which must be stated explicitly at the time of initial submission. If none of those apply, no cover letter is needed.
Short. Because the instructions ask for a cover letter only when it carries information relevant to the review, the note should be a few lines, not a one-page sales pitch. Disclose related work submitted elsewhere, explain how the paper differs from any earlier rejected Econometrica submission, and state any exemption request. Do not restate the abstract or argue significance in the note; that argument belongs in the introduction the Co-Editor reads next.
The published instructions do not ask authors to suggest co-editors or to list co-editor conflicts, and the cover letter section does not mention them. If the online submission form asks for such information, follow its prompts; otherwise do not pad the note with suggestions. Separately, the Society's conflict of interest policy keeps Editors, Co-Editors, Associate Editors, and the Data Editor from handling papers by their current colleagues, thesis advisors, active co-authors, or people for whom they served as main advisor.
Yes. Econometrica requires original, unpublished work that is not under consideration elsewhere, so the note can confirm the manuscript is an original, exclusive submission. Critically, if the author has submitted related work elsewhere, the instructions say the author must provide Econometrica with the details, and if the submission relates to a previously rejected Econometrica submission, the author should explain why it is sufficiently different to warrant independent review. Hidden related submissions are an integrity issue, not a formatting one.
Yes. Alongside full papers, the Econometric Society journals accept short corrections and comments on papers previously published in the relevant journal. A correction is a very short article that identifies a significant error or flaw; a comment is more substantial and may offer a solution or a substantial generalization. Submitting either requires contacting at least one of the original authors, and the titles take the form 'Correction to' or 'Comment on' followed by the original paper title and authors.
Sources
- Econometrica Instructions Submitting Articles, Econometric Society.
- Econometrica Editorial Procedures and Policies, Econometric Society.
- Econometric Society Data and Code Availability Policy, Econometric Society.
- Econometric Society 2025 Fee Update, Econometric Society.
- Econometrica on Wiley Online Library, Wiley.
Free guide
A cover letter is a routing note, not a sales pitch.
The editor is deciding one thing from it: is this worth my reviewers time, and does it belong here. The guide is a one-page skeleton written to that decision, so the letter answers it in the first minute rather than restating your abstract.
Final step
Find out if this manuscript is ready to submit.
Run the Free Readiness Scan. See score, top issues, and journal-fit signals before you submit.
Private API processing. Your manuscript is not used to train models.
See example reportsPut the guidance to work
Move from draft advice to a practical manuscript pass.
Choose the reporting framework first, then use the final checklist when the manuscript and submission files are ready to travel together.