Submitting an op-ed

We receive scores of submissions each day and can publish only a small number. We make a point of publishing op-eds that represent a diverse array of political opinions. However, we are biased about what kind of op-eds we like to run, based on the following guidelines.

Things we like:

Pieces on timely topics between 600 and 800 words.

Pieces with nuanced and precise language written in the active voice.

Pieces that are relevant to our readers. Please read what we publish to get better acquainted with the types of pieces we run.

Pieces containing unexpected, unpopular or contrarian arguments. Your piece could be excellent but make points similar to several other pieces we have already run or plan to run soon. Yours will stand out if it addresses a unique problem or expresses a unique opinion.

Pieces that take the best of the other side’s arguments seriously. We want to cultivate a good-faith debate and believe the “other side” in the argument being rebutted should at least be able to recognize the motives, beliefs and thoughts being attributed to them by the author.

Pieces that include hyperlinks to back up all assertions of fact, statistics and quotes — especially anything contentious or controversial.

Pieces that come to us with a suggested headline likely to draw traffic to the piece.

Pieces that come with the author’s email address, so that we can send him or her our contributors agreement to e-sign.

Things we don’t like:

Pitches by email that don’t include op-eds. (We usually do not respond to these.)

PDF files.

Open letters.

Verbosity.

Pseudonyms for authors.

Jargon and euphemisms. We want pieces written in language that ordinary readers already use. If you try to slip strange words into your prose (e.g., “houselessness” for “homelessness”) we will likely translate to the vernacular.

Self-promotion. We usually won’t allow the name of your organization to be published within the piece itself, although you may include it in your bio at the end. (Exception: You may mention and link your book if you are writing on its topic.)

Acronyms that are unnecessary or not widely used or understood on first reference — sometimes even if they are technically permissible under AP or Hill style. Look, Washington is already an abominable alphabet soup (AAS) — please do not make this problem worse!

Undisclosed conflicts of interest. (Relevant conflicts of interest must be made clear to us and readers.)

Diatribes and extreme language.

Pieces that assume the reader knows as much about obscure topics as the author does.

Swampy topics backed by large infusions of corporate money. (Examples: pharmacy benefit managers, Puerto Rican bonds, vape regulations, procurement issues, patent law, antitrust, credit card swipe fees, et cetera.)

Pieces that have been published elsewhere, either in full or in part.

Pieces with libelous or tendentious and poorly supported accusations against others’ character or integrity; disparagement of others or their viewpoints on the basis of their ethnicity, religion, birthplace, parentage, sex or sexual orientation; use of ad hominem and other logical fallacies.

Please send submissions as text pasted in the body of your email to opinion@thehill.com.

A note on requests to un-publish already-published op-eds: Sometimes, years later, people will ask for such a thing. We will not honor such requests, so think before you send.