Overview
Writing for the public inverts academic habits. The finding goes first, context second, caveats in plain words rather than hedged clauses; sentences are short; jargon is replaced, not defined in parentheses. Most researchers can do this well with practice and a candid editor, and most first drafts still read like an abstract.
We work with you on the whole chain: identifying the angle and news hook, drafting or editing a pitch, shaping an op-ed or explainer article, producing plain-language summaries for journals, funders or participants, and adapting findings for policy readers. We check that every claim in the popular version is supported by your study.
Longer policy briefs with evidence synthesis and recommendations are handled by our policy research and briefs service; this page focuses on op-eds, explainers and plain-language summaries.
Who it’s for and the problems it solves
This is for you if you are…
- Researchers who want to publish an op-ed or an explainer in a newspaper, magazine or a platform such as The Conversation
- Authors asked by a journal to provide a plain-language summary or lay abstract
- Grant holders writing lay summaries for funders or public-facing project pages
- Health and social researchers preparing participant-facing summaries of results
- Academics engaging with policymakers, NGOs or professional bodies who need short, readable outputs
Common problems we help with
- Your draft is accurate but reads like a paper, and editors are not replying
- You are unsure how to state uncertainty without losing the reader
- A journal's plain-language summary limit is tight and your field's terms have no simple equivalent
- You worry the headline or editing will overstate your findings
- You want to reach a ministry or agency but do not know what format they read
- Your university's press office needs a short, clear description quickly
What’s included — and what isn’t
Included
- Story and angle development: the single sentence your piece is about and why it matters now
- Pitch writing or editing for opinion desks and academic-journalism outlets
- Drafting support or editing for op-eds and explainer articles, usually 600–1,200 words
- Plain-language summaries and lay abstracts to journal or funder specifications
- Participant-facing results summaries with accessible structure and reading level
- Short policy-facing pieces: evidence notes, briefing emails and one-page summaries
- Accuracy check: aligning every claim, number and caveat with the underlying study
- Readability review: jargon replacement, sentence length, structure and headline suggestions
- Disclosure guidance for funding and conflicts of interest
Not included
- Publishing under a ghost byline that misrepresents who holds the views; pieces appear under your name and reflect your position
- Exaggerating findings, inventing statistics or adding claims your research does not support
- Placing articles through paid media or contacting editors on your behalf
- Lobbying or political campaigning
What you receive
- Angle and pitch
- A one-sentence story, a short pitch to an editor, and suggested outlets whose audience fits.
- Draft or edited article
- An op-ed or explainer in plain language, with links to primary sources and a suggested headline and standfirst for the editor to consider.
- Plain-language summary
- A lay summary meeting your journal's or funder's word limit and format, tested for jargon and reading level.
- Accuracy notes
- A side-by-side check of each claim against your paper, flagging anything that needs softening or a caveat.
How it works
Start with the research
You share the paper or report and tell us who you want to reach and why.
Find the story
We agree the main message, the evidence behind it and the audience's likely questions.
Draft and refine
We draft or edit the piece with you, typically over two rounds, testing clarity with a non-specialist read.
Check accuracy
We compare the final text to the study so nothing is overstated after editing.
Prepare to pitch or submit
We finalize the pitch or summary to the outlet's or journal's requirements; you send it.
Formats and techniques
- Op-ed structure
- A clear argument in the first paragraph, three or four supporting points grounded in evidence, an acknowledgment of the strongest counterargument, and a concrete conclusion.
- Academic-journalism explainers
- Outlets such as The Conversation publish pieces by academics with editorial support, usually around 600–800 words, with sources linked and a focus on why readers should care.
- Plain-language summaries
- Short, structured summaries (what we studied, what we found, what it means, limitations) written for readers without specialist training, following journal or funder templates.
- Communicating uncertainty
- Replacing statistical hedging with plain statements such as 'this study cannot tell us whether…', and giving absolute as well as relative risks where relevant.
- Readability tools
- Readability scores and plain-language checklists used as guides, not targets, alongside a read-through by someone outside the field.
- Policy engagement formats
- One-page evidence summaries, briefing emails and consultation responses that lead with implications and are honest about the strength of evidence.
Getting past the opinion editor
Editors decide in seconds. A pitch that works names the argument in one sentence, explains why it matters to readers now (a news event, a policy decision, an anniversary, a new result), and shows why you are the right person to write it. Many academic authors bury the argument under background.
We help you find the timely hook and write a short pitch tailored to each outlet. We do not submit on your behalf, and we advise against sending the same op-ed to several opinion desks at once without telling them, since many expect exclusivity.
Plain-language summaries that are actually plain
A good lay summary is not a shortened abstract. It explains why the question matters, what was done in concrete terms, what was found, and what it does not show. Terms like 'statistically significant', 'cohort' or 'moderating effect' either disappear or are replaced by everyday descriptions.
Journals, funders and ethics committees have different templates and word limits, and some ask for the summary to be reviewed by members of the public or patient partners. We work to the brief you have and flag where public review would help.
- Lead with the finding in one sentence
- Use numbers people can picture: '3 in 100' rather than '3%' when it helps
- State limitations plainly, once
Writing for people who make decisions
Policy readers want to know what the evidence means for a decision they face, how confident they can be, and what the options are. A two-page note that answers those questions is often more useful than a long report. For fuller evidence reviews with recommendations, we coordinate with our policy research team so the short piece and the longer brief are consistent.
Keeping it honest
Public writing is where overstatement creeps in: correlations become causes, pilot results become breakthroughs, and headlines promise more than the study delivered. Our accuracy check compares every claim to your paper. Headlines are usually written by editors, so we suggest accurate options and help you raise concerns if a proposed headline misrepresents the work.
What the work can look like
Illustrative example — fictional data
Sample before-and-after: plain-language summary opening
A nutrition researcher needed a 250-word lay summary for a journal. The text below is invented to show the kind of change we make.
Before
This cross-sectional analysis of 2,104 adolescents examined associations between ultra-processed food consumption and sleep duration, adjusting for socioeconomic covariates, and found a statistically significant inverse association.
After
We asked about 2,100 teenagers what they ate and how long they slept. Those who ate more ultra-processed foods, such as packaged snacks and sugary drinks, tended to sleep less, even after accounting for family income. Our study was a snapshot in time, so it cannot tell us whether the food affects sleep, sleep affects food choices, or something else explains both.
Why it changed
The finding moved to the start; technical terms were replaced; the limitation was explained in everyday language rather than as 'cross-sectional design'.
Illustrative, invented example. It does not describe a real study or client.
What you’ll need to provide
- Your paper, report or findings summary
- The target outlet, journal or funder, and any guidelines or word limits
- The audience you most want to reach and what you want them to understand or do
- Any institutional press office requirements or media policies
- Funding sources and potential conflicts of interest for disclosure
You don’t need everything ready to ask for a quote — tell us what you have and we’ll say what’s missing.
What affects price and turnaround
Price depends on
- Type and length of piece (lay summary, op-ed, explainer, policy note)
- Whether you want editing of your draft or drafting support from your research
- Number of versions for different outlets or audiences
- Technical complexity of the underlying research
- Turnaround needed for a news-driven piece
Turnaround depends on
- News hooks that make timing critical
- Journal or funder deadlines for lay summaries
- Rounds of review with co-authors or your institution's press office
Every project is quoted individually. How we price our work.
Questions people ask before starting
Will you ghostwrite an op-ed for me?
We can help you draft a piece from your own research, argument and views, and you revise and approve it. It must genuinely represent your position, and you should follow the outlet's policies on authorship and disclosure. We do not produce pieces presented as someone's views when they are not.
Can you get my article published?
No one can promise that. We help you write a strong pitch and piece and suggest suitable outlets; the editor decides.
Can you write lay summaries for a whole project or grant?
Yes. We can prepare a set of summaries for a project website, funder report or participant newsletter, keeping the message consistent across them.
My research is highly technical. Can it really be explained simply?
Almost always, if we focus on why the question matters and what changes if you are right. Not every detail needs to make it into the public version.
Should I involve my university's press office?
Usually yes. Press offices know local media, may have relationships with editors, and often have approval processes. We can work alongside them.