scientific-email-polishing

• [Purpose](#purpose)
• [When to Use](#when-to-use)
• [Core Principles](#core-principles)
• [Workflow](#workflow)
• [Email Types](#email-types)
• [Tone Guidelines](#tone-guidelines)
• [Guardrails](#guardrails)
• [Quick Reference](#quick-reference)

This skill helps compose and polish professional scientific correspondence including emails to collaborators, cover letters to journal editors, and responses to peer reviewers. It ensures clear communication, appropriate tone, explicit asks, and professional formatting for academic contexts.

Use this skill when:

• Professional emails: To collaborators, department heads, funding officers
• Journal cover letters: Submitting manuscripts to journals
• Response to reviewers: Addressing peer review comments
• Editor correspondence: Queries, appeals, resubmission letters
• Cold outreach: Potential collaborators, speakers, advisors
• Administrative emails: To program officers, committee members

Trigger phrases: "write an email", "cover letter to journal", "response to reviewers", "email to collaborator", "professional email", "polish this email"

Do NOT use for:

• Recommendation letters (use academic-letter-architect)
• Research statements (use career-document-architect)
• Grant proposals (use grant-proposal-assistant)

1. One email, one purpose: Each email should have a clear, single objective

2. Explicit asks: State exactly what you need from the recipient and by when

3. Context first: Open with enough context for the reader to understand immediately

4. Professional but warm: Formal doesn't mean cold; collegial is appropriate

5. Scannable format: Busy recipients skim; use structure to aid quick reading

Copy this checklist and track your progress:

```

Email Polishing Progress:

• [ ] Step 1: Identify purpose and desired outcome
• [ ] Step 2: Draft subject line (clear, specific)
• [ ] Step 3: Write opening (context in first sentence)
• [ ] Step 4: Compose body (organized, scannable)
• [ ] Step 5: State explicit ask (what, by when)
• [ ] Step 6: Close professionally (next steps, sign-off)
• [ ] Step 7: Review tone (polite, appropriate)

```

Step 1: Identify Purpose and Outcome

What action do you want the recipient to take? What decision do you need? By when? If you can't state this clearly, the email isn't ready to send.

Step 2: Draft Subject Line

Subject should preview content and signal urgency/type. Be specific: "Meeting request: Collaboration on X project" not "Quick question". See [resources/template.md](resources/template.md#subject-lines) for examples.

Step 3: Write Opening

First sentence should establish context. Who are you (if unknown), why are you writing, what's this about? No need for extensive pleasantries. See [resources/template.md](resources/template.md#openings) for openers.

Step 4: Compose Body

Organize information logically. Use short paragraphs. Consider bullets for multiple points. Bold key information if needed. Keep under 3-4 paragraphs for most emails.

Step 5: State Explicit Ask

Be clear about what you need. Include timeline if relevant. Make it easy to say yes. Don't bury the ask.

Step 6: Close Professionally

Thank them, indicate next steps, offer to provide more info. Use appropriate sign-off for relationship level. See [resources/template.md](resources/template.md#closings) for sign-offs.

Step 7: Review Tone

Read aloud. Is it polite but efficient? Not too casual, not too stiff? Appropriate for your relationship with recipient? Validate using [resources/evaluators/rubric_email.json](resources/evaluators/rubric_email.json).

Journal Cover Letter

Purpose: Introduce manuscript, explain significance, suggest reviewers

Structure:

```

Subject: Submission: [Manuscript Title] - [Type: Original Research/Review/etc.]

Dear Dr. [Editor] / Dear Editors,

[PARAGRAPH 1: What and why]

Please find attached our manuscript entitled "[Title]" for consideration

as a [Article Type] in [Journal Name]. This work [brief significance statement].

[PARAGRAPH 2: What's new]

Our study [key finding/contribution]. This advances the field by [impact].

We believe this work will interest readers of [Journal] because [fit with

journal scope].

[PARAGRAPH 3: Practicalities]

The manuscript is [X] words with [Y] figures. All authors have approved

the submission and there are no conflicts of interest to declare. This

work has not been published elsewhere and is not under consideration

at another journal.

[OPTIONAL: Reviewer suggestions]

We suggest the following potential reviewers: [Names with institutions

and emails].

[CLOSING]

Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

[Corresponding Author]

```

Response to Reviewers

Purpose: Address each point thoroughly and professionally

Structure:

```

Subject: Revised Manuscript [ID]: [Title]

Dear Dr. [Editor],

Thank you for the opportunity to revise our manuscript "[Title]". We

appreciate the thoughtful comments from the reviewers, which have

significantly improved our work. Below we provide point-by-point

responses to each comment. Reviewer comments are in italics, our

responses in plain text, and changes to the manuscript are noted.

---

REVIEWER 1

Comment 1: [Quote reviewer comment]

Response: [Your response]. We have [action taken]. This change appears

on page X, lines Y-Z.

Comment 2: [Quote reviewer comment]

Response: [Your response].

[Continue for all comments]

---

REVIEWER 2

[Same format]

---

We hope these revisions address the reviewers' concerns and that the

manuscript is now suitable for publication in [Journal]. Please do not

hesitate to contact us if additional revisions are needed.

Sincerely,

[Corresponding Author]

```

Collaboration Request

Purpose: Propose collaboration with new contact

Structure:

```

Subject: Collaboration opportunity: [Brief topic description]

Dear Dr. [Name],

I am [Your Name], a [position] at [Institution], working on [research area].

I am reaching out because [why them specifically - be genuine and specific].

[Brief background on your work and why collaboration makes sense]

I would be interested in [specific collaboration proposal]. This could involve

[what you're proposing - be concrete].

Would you be available for a brief call to discuss? I'm flexible on timing

and happy to work around your schedule.

Thank you for considering this. [Optional: note any mutual connection]

Best regards,

[Your Name]

```

Formality Spectrum

| Recipient | Tone | Example Sign-off |

|-----------|------|-----------------|

| Unknown editor/senior | Formal | "Sincerely," "Respectfully," |

| Known colleague (distant) | Professional-warm | "Best regards," "Best," |

| Known colleague (close) | Warm-professional | "Best," "Thanks," |

| Close collaborator | Friendly-professional | "Thanks," "Cheers," |

Professional but Not Stiff

Too stiff:

> "I am writing to inquire as to whether you might be available to provide guidance regarding..."

Too casual:

> "Hey! Quick q - you free to chat about that thing?"

Just right:

> "I'm reaching out to see if you'd have time to discuss [topic]. Would a brief call work for you next week?"

Diplomatic Language

When declining:

• "Unfortunately, I won't be able to..."
• "While I appreciate the opportunity, my current commitments prevent..."
• "I'd recommend reaching out to [alternative] who might be better positioned..."

When disagreeing (reviewer response):

• "We respectfully disagree with this interpretation because..."
• "While we understand the reviewer's concern, our data suggests..."
• "We have added clarification to address this point, though we maintain that..."

When following up:

• "I wanted to follow up on my previous email..."
• "I'm circling back on [topic]..."
• "Apologies for the additional email, but I wanted to check..."

Critical requirements:

1. Clear purpose: Every email needs an identifiable goal
2. Explicit asks: Don't make recipients guess what you need
3. Professional tone: Appropriate for academic/scientific context
4. Proofread: Errors undermine credibility
5. Appropriate length: Respect recipients' time
6. Complete information: Include everything needed to respond

Common pitfalls:

• ❌ Buried ask: Request hidden in paragraph 4
• ❌ No deadline: "When you get a chance" = never
• ❌ Wall of text: Long unbroken paragraphs
• ❌ Too casual: "Hey" to journal editor
• ❌ Too formal: Stilted language to close colleague
• ❌ Missing context: Assuming they remember previous exchange
• ❌ Multiple topics: Should be separate emails

Key resources:

• [resources/template.md](resources/template.md): Subject lines, openings, closings, full templates
• [resources/evaluators/rubric_email.json](resources/evaluators/rubric_email.json): Quality scoring

Subject line formulas:

• Request: "Meeting request: [Topic]"
• Follow-up: "Follow-up: [Original topic]"
• Submission: "Submission: [Title]"
• Response: "RE: [Topic] - [Your action]"
• Question: "Question about [Specific topic]"

Time estimates:

• Quick email: 5-10 minutes
• Cover letter: 15-30 minutes
• Response to reviewers: 1-4 hours (depending on revisions)

Before sending checklist:

• [ ] Purpose clear?
• [ ] Ask explicit?
• [ ] Context provided?
• [ ] Tone appropriate?
• [ ] Proofread?
• [ ] Attachments attached?

Inputs required:

• Purpose/desired outcome
• Recipient relationship
• Key information to convey
• Any constraints (deadline, politics)

Outputs produced:

• Polished email draft
• (Optional) Commentary on tone/structure