review-cover-letterlisted

# /review-cover-letter The first document the editor reads. Most cover letters fail in one of two ways: they state no concrete novelty, or they give no real reason for choosing this journal. Both are fatal to the letter's purpose and both are quick to fix. ## Before anything else 1. **Load the style rules.** Invoke `paper-writing-style`. If absent, work from the condensed rules in `create-cover-letter`. 2. **Lock the language.** Language of the user's first message. Rewrites are English. 3. **Read the paper too** if available. The overclaiming check is impossible without it, and it is the check with the most at stake. ## Checks **1. Is the novelty concrete?** The letter must state what the work shows and why it advances the field, in specific terms. Flag: - Novelty stated as a topic rather than a finding: "we investigated the cycling behaviour of graphene electrodes" says nothing an abstract does not. - Novelty asserted rather than shown: "this represents a significant advance" with no content. - No novelty statement at all, which is commoner than it should be. Quote what is there and propose the concrete version using the paper's actual contribution. **2. Is there a real reason for this journal?** This is the check that separates a working letter from a template. Flag: - No mention of the journal beyond its name in the first line. - A reason that would apply to any journal: "your esteemed journal", "the high impact factor", "the wide rea