A link in my Globe email signature leads to here. That’s the raison d’etre for these guidelines. If you’ve arrived here via other routes, feel free to read on, of course, but please keep this context in mind.

I get a lot of questions on this issue. So, I’ve written down all the answers. I also was partly inspired by Jessica Reed, the U.S. features editor at the Guardian, who not only has a wonderfully detailed guide for pitching her but updates it often.

On rules and rigidity

Reading these guidelines will help a writer, but it doesn’t mean that each must be obeyed to the letter in every situation, or that following these is the only path to publication. Not every item in these guidelines will apply to everyone, and some may apply to some writers more so than others. I do not expect anyone to read these guidelines in their entirety.

Response expectations

When dealing with breaking news, we might be working toward a next-day or even same-day publication. But such situations, while bound to come up every now and then, are not the norm, and the bar for what constitutes breaking news is high.

Please allow up to three to five business days for a response. I unfortunately receive a lot of mail. Barring exceptional circumstances, I review new pitches and engage with new correspondence only on Tuesdays and Wednesdays; for pieces on which I’ve passed, I cannot give individual feedback or reconsider; and I do not give provide guidelines outside of this document.

Please note that a rejection is not an indictment of the submission. I get sent way more pieces than I have space for, and I’m forced to turn down the vast majority.

Artificial intelligence

The use of AI is not a disqualifying factor in itself. In deciding whether to publish, I judge a piece on its merits alone, and my first thought is never, “Is this AI?” But AI is not at the level yet that usage of it with minimal human involvement can produce good copy. There are many tell-tale signs of AI writing. Even if I don’t go looking or them, I can always tell, and that is a problem. If I can tell, readers can tell. If I suspect such AI usage, I put a piece through a detector. Every piece I suspect to be AI turns out to be AI as deemed by the detector.

I do appreciate that AI lowers the effort needed on the part of the writer. But the chances of getting it past me are close to zero. So, there is little incentive to do so. If someone is not that bad a writer to begin with — and I’m not judging this by some super high bar — AI writing doesn’t raise the quality of the output and may in fact even reduce it. There’s an opinion piece in the Globe that goes further into this.

Outline or fully written pieces?

Either is fine. But please note that outlines carry inherent uncertainty. For those who do not have track records as journalists or writers, it is highly likely I would need to see the fully written piece.

Administrative guidelines

Submissions must be exclusive to the Globe and Mail and must not have appeared elsewhere.

Opinion pieces are usually 750 words or so. Occasionally we do run longer ones, but the longer it gets, the higher the bar is.

Just like how, in a legislature, lawmakers can address only the speaker and not each other, we do not do rebuttals to previously published columns. Those would have to be in the letters to the editor section.

While the Globe’s main opinion section will likely have many of the same guidelines, I speak only for the business section. Please note, though, that Natasha Hassan, or any of the other editors in the main opinion section she oversees, usually bump their business pitches to me and vice-versa. If I decline something and it gets pitched to Natasha, it is highly likely that it comes back to me.

What I’m looking for

I won’t rehash the basics of an opinion piece. The New York Times has an excellent guide on that.

While I do have a duty to cover hard business issues such as the economy, finance and various industries, my section is not all about those. Almost any issue can have a business angle. The podcast Freakonomics demonstrates this well. I’ve run pieces on the businesses of the World Cup and of the singer Rihanna.

Aside from the obvious good writing, the best opinion pieces have takes that go against the grain, that challenge conventional thinking, that say the unexpected. Some of my favourite pieces:

“Canada’s overly educated work force is nothing to be proud of”

“All our pension funds are in trouble – we ignore this looming crisis at our peril”

“Canada’s $1.1-trillion debt is shockingly high – it threatens all that we value”

“Don’t shed a tear for Hudson’s Bay. There’s nothing left to mourn”

“Netflix’s desperate crackdown on password sharing shows it might fail like Blockbuster”

“Canada, be prepared for hardships not seen in generations”

“How Canada and allies can stand up to Trump and other great-power bullies”

For further guidance, please take a look at past pieces that have run in the Report on Business’s opinion section. Anything that does not have a face next to it on a white background (those are staff columnists) is an opinion piece that I have accepted.

I am always looking for pieces tied to planned events: central bank rate decisions; government budgets, announcements and policy changes; earnings seasons; milestones in major court or regulatory cases or corporate developments; visits by major foreign politicians, etc. While you are certainly welcome to try me on the day of, please note that I do tend to plan for these some time in advance.

Prosperity’s Path

There’s an ongoing series for which I am always seeking material. Pieces in the series are longer than usual and are given more substantial visual treatment and promotion.

Pieces are about 1,000 words, and the format is specific: solutions-focused, and it has to be one solution. I cannot stress this enough: No listicles. The solution has to be specific and dominate the piece, occupying at least half of it. Past pieces can be found on the Prosperity’s Path page, though please note this is a relaunch of an older series; this format applies only to pieces from the one I wrote and onward.

There is a higher bar in terms of execution. We must entertain as much as inform. The piece needs to be lively, accessible and start with a bang. While the following is not necessary, it’s easy and the effort-reward ratio is high: We call this the anecdotal lead (or “lede,” as it is spelled in journalese). Here is one example: simple and good, doing a lot with a great economy of words.

The piece will also need to come with two charts. Our designers make them, but they need the data from the writer and details on the chart: For example, a link to the data, what the chart headline should say, what the subhead should say, if there is one, and what data from which column or row we are using, etc.

This is a lot, and you don’t have to have all of it ready to pitch me. For this, sending an outline first is fine.

Fun fact

“Op-ed” refers to “opposite the editorial page.” It’s a reference to the section as a whole, not an individual piece, although it can be used adjectively a la “op-ed article