Write For Us
We publish argued, evidence-led writing on the questions that shape how societies are governed. We welcome pitches from academics, policy practitioners, journalists, and independent researchers, including doctoral students working on questions of policy consequence. You do not need an affiliation or a track record to be read. You need an argument.
INSIGHTS is a place for writing that goes somewhere. The pieces we are proudest of take a position, build it carefully from evidence, and leave the reader understanding something they did not understand before. We are far less interested in pieces that survey a topic, restate a consensus, or explain what everyone already agrees is happening. If your draft could be retitled "an overview of X", it is not yet ready for us. If it makes a claim that a reasonable person could disagree with, and then defends that claim, we want to read it.
What we publish
Expert Speak
800 to 1,200 wordsSharp, timely, built around a single argument. This is the format for responding to a breaking development while it still matters: a court ruling, a budget line, an election result, a diplomatic shift. A strong Expert Speak piece does one thing well. It makes a claim about what just happened, says why the conventional reading is incomplete, and tells the reader what to watch next. It does not try to cover everything.
Commentaries
1,500 to 2,500 wordsSustained argument around a specific policy question. This is the format for an argument that needs room to land: where you have to establish context, take the strongest version of the opposing view seriously, and then show why your reading is better. The best commentaries we publish could not be compressed into a tweet without losing their point. That is the test of whether the length is earned.
Issue Briefs
2,500 to 4,000 wordsIn-depth work that contributes something new. An issue brief is expected to situate itself in the existing literature, bring original analysis or data, and close with policy recommendations that actually follow from the analysis. This is the format for work you want cited. It carries the most weight and faces the most editorial scrutiny, and we give it the most space and the most care in return.
Our house style
Write to be understood by an intelligent reader who is not a specialist in your sub-field. Use technical vocabulary only where a plain word will not do, and define it when you do. Every empirical claim must be sourced, and we will check sources before publication. We prefer the active voice, short paragraphs, and concrete examples over abstraction. We are wary of writing that hides a thin argument behind heavy prose. If you can say it plainly, say it plainly.
We publish across the ideological spectrum and we do not require writers to share a house line, because we do not have one. What we require is that the argument is made in good faith, that opposing views are represented fairly rather than as straw figures, and that the evidence is real.
What happens after you submit
You pitch
Send a pitch of up to 300 words, or a complete draft, using the form below. A good pitch states your argument in its first two sentences, not its last.
We respond within ten working days
An editor reads every pitch. We will tell you if we want to commission the piece, if we want to see a fuller draft first, or if it is not right for us. A no from us is not a judgement on the work; it is a judgement on fit.
We edit together
If we take the piece, an editor works with you on structure, clarity, and evidence. We edit firmly but never silently. You see and approve every substantive change before anything is published.
We publish and you keep your name on it
Your piece appears under your byline, on your author page alongside anything else you write for us, and we circulate it through our channels. The work remains yours.
Pitch your piece
What we look for
A clear argument
Every piece must make a claim, not merely describe a debate. If it could be summarised as "this is what is happening", it is not yet a pitch.
Original evidence
Interviews, data, archives, or close reading. We want pieces that bring something of their own, not summaries of secondary sources.
Policy implications
What follows from the argument? What should a policymaker, regulator, or institutional actor do differently after reading it?
What we do not publish
We do not publish press releases, promotional content, or work written to advance a commercial or partisan campaign. We do not publish pieces whose central claims cannot be sourced. We do not publish personal attacks, and we do not publish writing that misrepresents an opposing position in order to defeat it more easily. We are happy to publish strong disagreement with a person's ideas. We will not publish contempt for the person.