How to Write an Econometrica Cover Letter (With Template)
Econometrica discourages a long cover letter and asks for a short cover note instead. Here is what that note must contain, the two-co-editor suggestion, the related-work disclosure, 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 note is ordinarily discouraged and is needed only when there is information pertinent to the review process.
Your note should do four things in a few lines: name the two suggested co-editors (and list any co-editor with a conflict of interest), disclose related work by the same authors under review elsewhere or a paper previously reviewed at Econometrica, confirm the exclusive, original submission with all authors approving, and state the article type. 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 "discouraged" stance changes the standard advice you have read for other journals.
From our manuscript review practice
Econometrica discourages a long cover letter and asks for a short cover note plus two co-editor suggestions. The note's real job is disclosure: related work under review elsewhere, prior Econometrica review, and any co-editor conflict of interest.
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 note need not be included unless there is information pertinent to the review process, and that cover notes are otherwise ordinarily discouraged. 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?" There are exactly four categories, and 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 must contain
Note element | What to write | Why the Co-Editor needs it |
|---|---|---|
Two co-editor suggestions | Name the two co-editors whose field best matches the paper | The system asks for them; a good match speeds routing |
Conflict-of-interest list | Name any co-editor with a conflict with any author | Prevents an assignment that has to be unwound later |
Related-work disclosure | Any related paper by the same authors under review elsewhere | Hidden parallel submissions are an integrity problem |
Prior-Econometrica disclosure | Whether this paper was reviewed earlier at Econometrica | Lets the Co-Editor see continuity with a past decision |
Exclusive-submission declaration | The work is original and not under consideration elsewhere | The originality bar is a publication condition |
Article type | Article, or Notes and Comments / Comment | The length and editorial bar differ by type |
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 as a [Article / Notes and Comments] submission.
Suggested co-editors. We suggest [CO-EDITOR FIELD 1, e.g., the co-editor
handling econometric theory] and [CO-EDITOR FIELD 2] as the co-editors
whose fields best match this paper. To our knowledge, no co-editor has a
conflict of interest with any author, except [NAME ANY CONFLICTED CO-EDITOR
OR WRITE "none"].
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 an earlier version was reviewed
at Econometrica, OR write "This paper has not been previously reviewed at
Econometrica."]
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 a discouraged note.
Article-type handling: Article vs Notes and Comments
Econometrica is not single-type. Alongside full Articles, it has long maintained a Notes and Comments category for shorter contributions and for comments on previously published work. Your cover note should state which you are submitting, because the editorial bar differs:
- An Article is judged on a self-contained methodological or theoretical contribution at the top-5 standard.
- A Notes and Comments piece or a Comment on a published Econometrica paper is judged on whether it corrects, extends, or overturns a specific prior result. A Comment that merely disagrees in spirit, without showing the original conclusion changes, will not clear the bar.
Picking the wrong type is a quiet desk-rejection risk: a Comment dressed as a full Article reads as thin, and a full Article filed as a Note 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 |
|---|---|---|
Co-editor suggestions (two) | Cover note | Name both, matched to field |
Co-editor conflict of interest | Cover note | List any conflicted co-editor or write "none" |
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 Editorialexpress editorial team page, 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 main-text cap (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: unlike many journals, Econometrica's intake centers on the two co-editor suggestions rather than a long list of suggested referees, so do not pad the note with 3 to 5 referees the system did not request. A handling Co-Editor typically assigns 2 to 3 referees of their own choosing, and your guess at who they will pick adds nothing. If you genuinely need to exclude a specific reviewer for a real conflict, name that excluded referee as a conflict 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 pertinent 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. 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, we match the co-editor suggestion 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](/ai-review?
target_journal=Econometrica&source_blog=econometrica-cover-letter&primary_concern=cover_letter_fit) 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: who should handle this, is anyone conflicted, is there related or prior work, 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 the system did not request. Center the two co-editor suggestions instead.
- Suggesting co-editors by fame rather than by field match to the methods.
- Omitting a related companion paper under review elsewhere. Disclose it.
- Forgetting the article-type line. Article and Notes and Comments are judged differently.
- 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 two co-editor suggestions, conflicts, related-work disclosure, and the exclusive-submission line
- the article type (Article or Notes and Comments) is stated and 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 two suggested co-editors were chosen by seniority rather than by field match to the paper's methods section and identification strategy
- 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: June 2026 against Econometric Society submission instructions and data-and-code policy.
Frequently asked questions
No. Econometrica's instructions say a cover note is ordinarily discouraged and is needed only when there is information pertinent to the review process. The standard pertinent items are related work by the same authors under review elsewhere, a paper previously reviewed at Econometrica, and the two co-editor suggestions the submission system asks for. If none of those apply, a one-line note confirming the suggested co-editors and any conflicts is enough.
Short. Because Econometrica discourages cover letters, the note should be a few lines, not a one-page sales pitch. State the two suggested co-editors, list any co-editor with a conflict of interest, disclose related or prior work, and confirm the exclusive-submission declaration. Do not restate the abstract or argue significance in the note; that argument belongs in the introduction the Co-Editor reads next.
Yes, and you should. The submission system asks authors to suggest the names of two co-editors most appropriate to handle the paper, and to list any co-editor who has a conflict of interest with one or more authors. Match the suggestion to the methodological field of the paper (econometric theory, microeconomic theory, applied econometrics) rather than to the most senior name you recognize.
Yes. Econometrica publishes original work that is not under consideration elsewhere, so the note should confirm the manuscript is an original, exclusive submission and that all authors have approved it. Critically, if related work by the same authors is under review at another journal, or if this paper was reviewed earlier at Econometrica, you must disclose that in the note. Hidden related submissions are an integrity issue, not a formatting one.
Yes. Alongside full Articles, Econometrica has historically published a Notes and Comments category for shorter contributions and comments on prior work. The cover note should make clear which type you are submitting, because the length expectation and editorial bar differ. A Comment on a published Econometrica paper is judged on whether it changes the conclusion of the original, not on standalone novelty.
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.
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.
Anthropic Privacy Partner. Zero-retention manuscript processing.
Where to go next
Same journal, next question
Supporting reads
Conversion step
Find out if this manuscript is ready to submit.
Anthropic Privacy Partner. Zero-retention manuscript processing.