An editorial is a short opinion piece in which an editor, or an invited author, comments on an issue, a paper, or a development in the field. Unlike a research article, it does not present new data; its value lies in judgement, context, and a clear position. A strong editorial helps readers understand why something matters, what should change, and what to watch next, in a few hundred words rather than a full review.
Editorials carry influence beyond their length. They are widely read, often cited in debates, and sometimes used to announce a journal's position on a contested question. That influence brings responsibility: claims must be accurate, conflicts must be declared, and criticism must be fair. This guide explains how editorials work, how to structure one, and how to write with authority without overstepping the evidence.
An editorial is an argument, not a report. Its author takes a position on a question the field is debating, supports that position with evidence and reasoning, and invites readers to agree, disagree, or act. Editorials may accompany a research article in the same issue, comment on a policy change, mark an anniversary, or respond to a controversy. In each case the reader expects a viewpoint, clearly owned, rather than a neutral summary.
An editorial is not a review article, a research paper, or a press release. It should not present unpublished data as if it were established, summarise a field at length without a point, or promote a product, institution, or individual without disclosure. Editors reject editorials that read like advertisements or that merely restate a paper's abstract with praise attached. The test is simple: after reading it, a reader should know what you think and why, in terms they can challenge.
The most common type is the invited editorial, where an editor asks a recognised expert to comment on a paper or topic in an upcoming issue. These usually have a tight deadline and a strict word limit, often 800 to 1,500 words, and they are expected to be timely rather than comprehensive. Accept only if you can meet the deadline and if you have genuine expertise; a late or shallow invited editorial helps nobody.
Other types include the journal editorial, written by the editor to explain a policy, a change of scope, or the journal's position; the guest editorial, written by an invited author on a theme; and the unsolicited editorial, submitted without invitation on a topic the author believes deserves attention. Unsolicited editorials face a higher bar: the author must convince the editor, usually in a short proposal, that the topic is timely, the argument is original, and the author is qualified to make it.
Start by stating your question in one sentence: what issue are you addressing, and what position will you take? An editorial that tries to cover several debates at once usually persuades nobody, because its argument never gets deep enough to convince. Choose one question, decide your answer, and gather the evidence that supports it, including evidence that complicates it. An editorial that ignores the strongest counterargument invites readers to supply it.
Check every factual claim before you write it, not after. Editorials are read by specialists who will notice an error in a date, a number, or a quotation, and an error in a short piece damages credibility more than the same error in a long one. Note your sources as you go, even if the published editorial carries few references, so that any challenged claim can be verified quickly. If a claim cannot be verified, either verify it or remove it.
A reliable structure has three parts. Open with the issue and why it matters now: a recent paper, a policy decision, a trend in the data, or an event in the field. A strong opening gives the reader a reason to continue in the first two sentences; a slow opening that surveys history for a paragraph will lose readers who already know the background.
Then develop the argument in two or three points, each supported by evidence or reasoning, and each answering an objection a sceptical reader would raise. Keep the order logical: the strongest point is often best placed first, so that a reader who stops early still encounters it. Close with a clear conclusion and, where appropriate, a call to action: what should researchers, clinicians, editors, or policymakers do differently? An editorial that ends without a conclusion feels unfinished, however well its middle is written.
Tone is where many editorials succeed or fail. Write with confidence, but distinguish firmly between what is established, what is likely, and what is your opinion. Phrases such as the evidence shows are appropriate for settled findings; the evidence suggests fits findings that need confirmation; and in my view marks a judgement the reader is free to dispute. Blurring these levels makes an editorial read as advocacy rather than argument.
Be fair to those you criticise. State opposing positions accurately, acknowledge their strongest point before answering it, and avoid personal language about individuals. Criticise ideas, methods, and policies, not people, and avoid speculation about motives. A fair editorial persuades readers who disagree; an unfair one only persuades readers who already agree, which is the audience that least needs persuading.
Editorials are short, so every reference must earn its place. Cite the key paper or policy you are discussing, the strongest evidence for your position, and the strongest evidence against it, and leave the rest out. Most journals allow a small number of references in editorials, often fewer than ten, so choose them for authority and relevance rather than completeness. A reference list padded with marginally relevant papers weakens the argument it is meant to support.
Quote sparingly and accurately. A short quotation from a paper, a guideline, or a policy document can anchor an argument, but long quotations waste the word limit and shift the author's voice. Paraphrase in your own words, cite the source, and reserve direct quotation for wording whose exact form matters, such as a definition or a recommendation. Check each quotation against the original before submission, including its context, so that it does not misrepresent the source.
Editorials are opinion pieces, which makes disclosure more important, not less. Declare any financial or non-financial interest that could be seen to influence your position: funding, consultancy, institutional roles, or involvement in the work you are discussing. If you are commenting on a paper by a collaborator, a colleague, or a competitor, say so, and let the editor decide whether the conflict prevents publication or merely requires disclosure.
Do not use an editorial to settle a personal dispute, to promote your own work without acknowledging it as yours, or to criticise a paper you have not read in full. Editors may check, and readers certainly will. If you have reviewed the paper concerned, or have a competing interest the journal should know about, tell the editor before you write, not after the piece is submitted. Transparency at the start prevents retraction or correction later.
Read several recent editorials in the target journal before you draft. Note their length, their structure, their tone, and how they handle references and headings. A journal whose editorials are short, punchy, and topical will not welcome a long, reflective essay, however good it is, and a journal whose editorials are measured and scholarly will not welcome a polemical one. Matching the journal's conventions is not a loss of independence; it is how you reach its readers.
Also consider the journal's audience beyond its core field. Many editorials are read by clinicians, policymakers, or researchers in neighbouring fields who lack specialist background. Explain terms and context briefly when they are needed, and avoid assuming knowledge that only a narrow group holds. An editorial that only specialists can follow fails at the very job editorials exist to do, which is to frame a debate for the wider readership.
Invited editorials come with a deadline that is often tied to an issue's publication schedule, so treat it as fixed. If you cannot meet it, say so at once so the editor can invite someone else; a late withdrawal is worse than an early refusal. Confirm the word limit, the reference limit, and whether the journal wants a title, a standfirst, or author information in a particular form, and follow those instructions exactly.
Expect editing. Editors may shorten your piece, adjust its tone, or ask you to soften a claim, and they will usually show you the edited version before publication. Respond promptly and professionally, defend wording that matters to the argument with reasons, and accept changes that improve clarity. The relationship with an editor who trusts you is worth more than any single sentence, and it is how further invitations follow.
The most common mistake is writing without a position: a piece that surveys a topic, lists developments, and ends without saying what should happen. Readers finish it unsure why it was written. A second mistake is overstating the case, using words such as clearly, obviously, or undoubtedly for claims the evidence only supports weakly; such words invite the reader to look for the flaw, and they usually find it.
Other mistakes include attacking individuals rather than arguments, citing selectively while ignoring contrary evidence, and writing at a length the journal did not ask for. Each of these can be avoided by the same discipline: state your position, support it fairly, declare your interests, and respect the word limit. An editorial that does those four things is already stronger than most.
Use this checklist on the final version: the issue and your position are clear in the opening; the argument has two or three supported points and answers the strongest objection; every factual claim has been checked; conflicts of interest are declared; the tone is firm but fair; the length and reference count match the journal's instructions; and the conclusion states what should happen next. If any item fails, revise that part before submitting.
Finally, remember that a good editorial outlasts its issue. Readers return to editorials that framed a debate well, even years later, and they remember authors who argued fairly under disagreement. Write the piece you would be comfortable defending in public, with your name attached, because that is exactly how it will be read. For the wider publication process, see our guide on how to publish a research paper and our explainer on double-blind peer review explained.
| Type | Who writes it | Typical length |
|---|---|---|
| Invited editorial | Expert invited by the editor | 800 to 1,500 words |
| Journal editorial | The journal editor | 500 to 1,500 words |
| Guest editorial | Invited author on a theme | 1,000 to 2,000 words |
| Unsolicited editorial | Author submitting a proposal | 800 to 1,500 words |
| Commentary | Author commenting on a paper | 500 to 1,200 words |
These authoritative external resources explain the standards and tools mentioned in this guide:
What is an editorial in an academic journal?
An editorial is a short opinion piece in which an editor or invited author comments on an issue, a paper, or a development in the field. It presents a position supported by evidence and reasoning, rather than new data, and it usually runs between 500 and 2,000 words depending on the journal.
How long should an editorial be?
Most editorials run from 800 to 1,500 words, though some journals accept as few as 500 or as many as 2,000. Always confirm the word limit, reference limit, and deadline with the editor before writing, since invited editorials are often tied to a fixed issue schedule.
Can I submit an editorial without being invited?
Yes, but unsolicited editorials face a higher bar. Send the editor a short proposal explaining why the topic is timely, what your argument is, and why you are qualified to make it. An editor who accepts the proposal is far more likely to publish the finished piece.
Do editorials need references?
Yes, but few. Cite the key paper or policy under discussion, the strongest evidence for your position, and the strongest evidence against it. Most journals allow fewer than ten references in editorials, so choose them for authority and relevance rather than completeness.
Must I declare conflicts of interest in an editorial?
Yes. Declare any financial or non-financial interest that could be seen to influence your position, including funding, consultancy, institutional roles, or involvement in the work discussed. Tell the editor about conflicts before writing, so the journal can decide whether disclosure is enough.
What tone should an editorial use?
Write with confidence but distinguish established findings from likely ones and from your own opinion. Criticise ideas, methods, and policies rather than people, state opposing positions fairly, and avoid words such as clearly or obviously for claims the evidence only weakly supports.