EVIDENCE Blog article guidance
General writing
· Hyperlink all sources/statements/attributions throughout the article. Always fact-check quotes and data. This is actually one of the most important elements of the blog article: we are providing accurate information and reliable sources. More = better.
· Aim for ~1,500–1,800 words. This is a rough guideline though, we will not reject 500 words or 2,500 words.
· Paragraphs should ideally be short (3-6 sentences), written in clear, active voice. Avoid dense jargon and explain concepts simply, especially for general or international audiences.
· If possible, include images, charts, or quotes – and credit all sources. Clearly mark screenshots, media, or social media excerpts with date/access/source.
· Translate or summarise non-English materials for inclusivity, but always include the original as well (so people can come to their own translation if desired).
· Indicate where/how you have used AI. AI tends to get CBRN facts very wrong, and it also tends to make vague and broad generalisations about international security. While we are not against the use of AI in writing, please be very, very careful with it. Read results critically, and adjust to your own voice.
Structure
· Title: aim for something clear, engaging, and informative. Come up with this last, after writing the entire article.
· Introduction: start with a compelling anecdote, recent event, quote, or statistic. Briefly explain why this topic matters (e.g. why now, why the audience should care). State clearly what the article will explore or argue.
· Framing and background: define key concepts, and use several (e.g. 2-3) reputable academic or policy sources to anchor your narrative (see e.g. Google Scholar). If relevant (this is not always the case!!), introduce a theoretical framework (e.g., securitisation, symbolic power, risk perception).
· Case studies or evidence (!): present a few (e.g. 2-4) examples (ideally a mix of historic and recent) that illustrate the issue. For each case, consider (1) What happened? Who said/did what? (b) Was there mislabelling, exaggeration, or misinformation? (c) How did authorities, media, and the public respond? (d) Were there unintended consequences (panic, overreach, loss of trust)? Use various platforms (Google News, LexisNexis, Reddit, X, BlueSky etc.) and cross-verify.
· Analysis and implications: reflect on patterns across the cases, namely who benefits from threat inflation or disinformation? How does it affect public trust, crisis response, or international stability? Are there regional or cultural dynamics at play? Integrate expert commentary or scholarly insights where possible. N.b. use sub-headings to group ideas thematically if this section gets very long.
· Solutions and recommendations: propose practical actions for e.g. policymakers (transparency protocols, proportionate responses), kournalists (e.g., clearer language, mythbusting), researchers (e.g., more regional case studies), educators (e.g., digital literacy training), etc. If possible, point to good practices (e.g., WHO communication guides, NATO clarification briefs).
· Conclusion: reaffirm your key message or takeaway, reconnect briefly with your opening hook or question. Suggest next steps, further reading, and/or questions for readers to consider.
