Write for Us

Summary

We welcome well-written, interesting submissions. Please pitch your idea to the editor at editor@skeptic.org.uk in the first instance. Submissions from new writers will not be accepted without first having pitched to the editor – we don’t want to waste your time in writing an article that isn’t the right fit for The Skeptic. 

This page provides general guidelines on writing for The Skeptic. The goal is to provide a general overview of our core values, and support our writers in generating engaging pieces.

Payment

The Skeptic does not currently offer paid commissions for any of our writers or editorial staff. You will, however, be fully credited for your work.

Copyright

We do not typically accept content which has been published in full elsewhere, unless there is an individual case to be made. Please ensure you hold the copyright or have appropriate permission for any content you submit (including text, images, sound etc.).

Upon publication, copyright for submitted content is shared with The Skeptic. Your content deserves to be seen and we do not wish to unreasonably prohibit republication. Republishing content on a personal website or blog is absolutely permitted, although we ask you to leave at least 3 weeks between publication with The Skeptic before you do so. If you wish to publish content elsewhere, please contact our editor about how best to go about this.

Word-count

Typically 800-1200 words. Be concise. Fewer or more words are acceptable if the post warrants it.

Content

Topics can be from any field – we look to host a broad variety of topics. Skepticism can be applied to almost anything. Find a skeptical angle on your area of interest. We host material on topics as wide ranging as witchcraft, forensics, fraudulent bomb detectors, conspiracy theories, medical pseudoscience and nutrition.

Where you make claims, please back them up with links to sources or examples. Sources should be reliable. For claims made by individuals please link to evidence that they made that claim which may include newspaper articles. If you make a claim – please back it up with information from a reliable source such as a peer-reviewed article or a summary from a relevant expert. The editor can provide guidance on this. Links should be provided in text across several words for accessibility reasons. If you wish to provide further reading at the end of your piece, we recommend limiting it to 3-5 articles listed in bullet format.

The Skeptic is an apolitical organisation so promotion or support of party-politics is not something we’re looking to host on our website. Critiques of specific policies, however, are acceptable, and actively encouraged where appropriate.

Tone

We aim for a tone that is informal but not chatty – The Skeptic is not an academic publication and should not be dry, however we want to maintain a professional style comparable to New Scientist of Gizmodo.

We focus on sharing information and reasoned analysis based on supportive evidence. Avoid opinion or conjecture.

The Skeptic’s audience is a science-interested lay audience. Avoid or explain technical terminology without talking down to the reader. Write with humility and avoid pomposity, self-aggrandisement or superiority.

Avoid hype – our readers should be able to trust your analysis and conclusions.

Humour is encouraged, where appropriate, but the targets of the joke should be considered carefully – we punch up, not down; we don’t mock people who promote pseudoscience but we can find humour in what they are saying/doing and by highlighting inconsistencies; we don’t mock people who believe in pseudoscience and any humour involving believers should be handled with care, consideration and sensitivity.

Be concise. Where possible, keep sentences short and unconvoluted. This is helpful both for clarity, and accessibility. Write in active voice (avoid passive voice).

Images

We post a minimum of two images per blog post but this can extend to 5-6 or more for longer posts. If you have any images you specifically think are relevant (and have permission to use) then please send those along with your submission. Otherwise the editor will pick relevant stock images

Biography

Please include a short biography of around 50-60 words – examples can be seen on our website. Try to include your areas of expertise and relevant experience where possible. If you have your own blog, shop or social media accounts please feel free to share the links here. Write in third person and include your pronouns throughout.

Profile photo

Please attach a photo of yourself to use as an author headshot, including your face and shoulders.

Editing

Your submission will be edited by our editor. Where appropriate, the editor will make suggestions or corrections and send them back to you for review before posting.

Please remember

If you would like to pitch an idea before writing the post, please feel free to chat to the editor about your post idea and they will give you guidance.

If for any reason these guidelines aren’t suitable for your voice as an author or the story you’d like to write, but you’d still like to submit it for consideration then please do chat to the editor about how we might make this work.

Latest news

Time Team’s archaeologists showed us how experts can ruthlessly unpick a hoax

Channel 4's archaeology show Time Team's quiet destruction of a would-be hoaxer was a glorious illustration of the power of calm, patient expertise

The COVID-19 Vaccines are a sign for cautious optimism – but it is still early days

Three COVID-19 Vaccines have shown some very promising results, and we should rightly feel optimistic, but we aren't at the finish line yet

How Religion Trumped Science in America’s Coronavirus Response

There's a lot of blame to be apportioned when it comes to America's Coronavirus response - and religion needs to take its share

Real in What Sense? Consensually torturing skeptics over the nature of ‘realness’

Even a skeptic's sense of what is real can be less black and white than we think - and can lead to some surprisingly uncomfortable analysis

Four Perspectives On Peer Review: why it goes wrong, and why we need to fix it

The peer review process is vital, but it is riddled with errors and issues; the quality of future science depends on trying to improve it