Academic writing templates

[Your name]
[Designation, Department]
[Institution, City]
[Email] · [Phone] · ORCID: [0000-0000-0000-0000]

[Date]

To
The Editor-in-Chief
[Journal name]

Subject: Submission of the manuscript "[Full title of the paper]" for consideration as a [research article / review article]

Dear [Dr./Prof. Surname of the editor, or "Editor"],

I am pleased to submit the manuscript entitled "[Title]" for consideration for publication in [Journal name].

This study [examines / analyses / investigates] [the problem in one sentence]. Using [method, text or data set], it finds that [the main finding in one or two sentences]. This matters because [the contribution: what readers can now understand or do that they could not before].

The manuscript fits the scope of [Journal name] because [link to the journal's aims, or to a recent article it published on a related theme]. It will interest readers working on [field / theme].

I confirm that this manuscript is original, has not been published before, and is not under consideration by any other journal. All authors have approved the manuscript and agree to its submission. [There are no conflicts of interest to declare.] [The study received ethical approval from (committee), reference (number).]

[Optional: Suggested reviewers: name, affiliation, email, and why they are suitable.]

Thank you for considering this submission. I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,
[Name]
[Corresponding author]

Tip: Keep it to one page. Never send a generic letter: name the journal and the editor, and say in one line why the paper belongs there.

Manuscript ID: [ID]
Title: "[Title]"
Journal: [Journal name]

Dear [Editor's name],

Thank you for the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We are grateful to the reviewers for their careful reading and helpful comments. We have addressed every comment below. Reviewer comments are in bold, our responses follow, and all changes are highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript. Page and line numbers refer to the revised version.

Reviewer 1

Comment 1.1: [Paste the reviewer's comment exactly.]

Response: Thank you for this observation. We have [what you changed]. See page [x], lines [y–z]: "[quote the revised sentence]."

Comment 1.2: [Comment]

Response (if you disagree): We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion. However, we have retained [x] because [evidence or a reference]. To make this clearer, we have added [a sentence / a note] on page [x], lines [y–z].

Reviewer 2

Comment 2.1: [Comment]

Response: [Response, with page and line numbers.]

Other changes

[List any changes you made that no reviewer asked for, e.g. updated references or corrected a table.]

We believe the manuscript is much improved and hope it is now suitable for publication in [Journal name].

Yours sincerely,
[Name], on behalf of all authors

Tip: Be polite even when a comment is wrong. Thank the reviewer, answer with evidence, and never ignore a comment. A silent omission is the most common reason a revision is rejected.

Title page

Proposed title · your name · name of the supervisor · department and university · month and year.

1. Introduction

The broad area, the specific topic, and why it matters now. (About 1 page.)

2. Review of literature

Group earlier studies by theme, not one paragraph per author. End with what they have NOT done. (3–5 pages.)

3. Research gap and statement of the problem

One paragraph: the exact gap, and the problem your study addresses.

4. Research questions / hypotheses

• RQ1: [A question your data or texts can answer.]
• RQ2: [ ]

5. Objectives

• To examine / analyse / compare [ ].
• To [ ].

6. Theoretical framework

The theory or critical lens you will use, and why it suits the problem.

7. Methodology

Design, primary sources or sample, data collection, method of analysis, and limitations. (In literature: the primary texts, the critical approach, and the reason for choosing these texts.)

8. Scope and limitations

What the study covers and what it deliberately leaves out.

9. Significance of the study

Who benefits, and what the field gains.

10. Tentative chapter plan

• Chapter 1: Introduction
• Chapters 2–4: [The analysis chapters, one per objective or theme]
• Chapter 5: Conclusion and scope for further research

11. Timeline

Coursework, literature review, data collection or textual analysis, writing, submission, by semester.

12. References

In the style your department requires (MLA 9 for most English departments, APA 7 for the social sciences).

Tip: A strong synopsis is specific: one clear gap, two or three answerable questions, and a method that answers exactly those questions.

A. IMRaD (empirical research)

• Title: specific, and includes the key variables or population.
• Abstract (150–250 words): aim, method, key findings, conclusion. No citations.
• Keywords: 4–6 terms a reader would search for.
• Introduction: context → what is known → the gap → your aim or research question.
• Methods: design, participants or sample, tools, procedure, analysis, ethics. Enough detail for someone to repeat the study.
• Results: findings only, with tables and figures, and no interpretation yet.
• Discussion: what the results mean, comparison with earlier studies, limitations, implications.
• Conclusion: the answer to the research question in a few lines, and future research.
• References: in the journal's required style.

B. Literature and the humanities (argument-led)

• Title: often "Main title: subtitle naming the text and the approach".
• Abstract and keywords.
• Introduction: the text and author, the critical conversation, the gap, and your thesis statement (your argument in one or two sentences).
• Theoretical framework: the lens (e.g. postcolonial, ecocritical, feminist, life-writing) and its key ideas.
• Analysis sections (2–4): each makes one claim, supports it with close reading of quotations from the primary text, and links back to the thesis.
• Conclusion: what the reading reveals, why it matters, and what remains open.
• Works Cited: MLA 9, with the primary text(s) and the secondary criticism.

Tip: Before you write, check the target journal's author guidelines: word limit, citation style, and whether it wants headings. Formatting to the guidelines is the cheapest way to avoid a desk rejection.