Skip to content

Guidelines for Contributors

MATERIAL
FIRST SEEN 2026-09-30 · VERSION 20260930_rev01 · FIRST CAPTURED VERSION

What changed, in plain language

How reviews are made

HBR's contributor guidelines were reworded and trimmed for clarity, with several editorial-process details changed. The most notable substantive changes: authors will now be asked to sign the copyright form earlier in the process (when a proposal is picked up, not before publication), and the previous explicit assurance that 'authors continue to own the underlying ideas in their articles' has been deleted. The document also dropped its stated commitment to diverse, unbiased content and removed language encouraging rejected authors to resubmit. Most other edits are stylistic tightening, criteria clarifications, and byline/date updates.

Changes that may affect you

Copyright sign-off moved earlier, and ownership assurance removedMATERIAL
CONTENT LICENSE

Before, you only signed the copyright paperwork right before your piece was published, and HBR explicitly told you that you'd keep ownership of the underlying ideas in your article. Now, you're asked to sign the copyright form as soon as HBR decides to develop your pitch - much earlier, before you know if it will actually be published - and the promise that you keep ownership of your underlying ideas has been deleted from the guidelines.

“At that point we ask our authors to sign a copyright form and to disclose any financial relationships they have with companies cited in the proposed article.”

What you can do — Before signing any copyright form, ask your editor to confirm in writing what rights you're transferring and whether you still retain ownership of your underlying ideas.

Diversity and anti-bias commitment droppedMINOR
OTHER

HBR removed its stated commitment to representing a diverse audience and avoiding stereotypes and biased language in published content. This doesn't change any of your legal rights as a contributor, but it removes a public editorial standard you could previously point to.

“Across all these dimensions, we strive to publish content that aligns with our organizational commitment to serve a diverse audience of leaders overseeing a diverse array of organizations.”
Less clarity on what happens after a rejectionMINOR
OTHER

The guidelines used to explicitly invite you to resubmit a different idea if your pitch was turned down, and explained the common reasons pitches get rejected. That guidance has been removed, leaving less clarity for contributors about their options after a rejection.

“If we've turned down something you've submitted, please feel free to try again with another idea. If our editors have said no multiple times, it may mean your work isn't a good fit for our audience.”

Changelog

  1. ± CHANGEDIntro wording tweak

    Changed 'insights of the foremost experts' to 'ideas from the foremost experts.' Purely stylistic.

    we publish the insights of the foremost experts in management theory and practice.

    we publish ideas from the foremost experts in management theory and practice.

  2. − REMOVEDDiversity and anti-bias commitment removed

    A paragraph stating HBR's commitment to serving a diverse audience and avoiding stereotypes, bias, and diminishing language has been deleted entirely.

    Across all these dimensions, we strive to publish content that aligns with our organizational commitment to serve a diverse audience of leaders overseeing a diverse array of organizations. We look for pieces that are representative of that audience and their organizations in both the application of their ideas and in the examples that bring those ideas to life. We strive to ensure that our content avoids stereotypes, bias, and language that diminishes any particular group.

  3. ± CHANGEDEvidence criterion now favors empirical, academic contributors

    The 'Evidence' quality criterion now suggests contributors should ideally provide research they conducted themselves, and notes that most HBR authors are business school faculty or consultants.

    Referring to supporting research is one good way to do this; describing relevant examples is another.

    Referring to supporting research-ideally empirical research you've done yourself-is one good way to do this; describing relevant examples is another. Most HBR authors are business school faculty or consultants, because these professions allow them to do deep research across a range of companies and industries.

  4. ± CHANGEDOriginality criterion reworded

    Removed the specific note that ideas shouldn't be easily replicable via an LLM, and reworded the reasons proposals get rejected for lacking originality.

    The ideas should not be easily replicable by simply asking a large language model (LLM). One of the most common reasons we turn down proposals is because the findings or prescriptions aren't surprising.

    We reject many well-constructed proposals because we've already published something similar, we've published articles on the same general topic recently, or because the findings or prescriptions aren't new or surprising.

  5. ± CHANGEDPitch submission instructions moved earlier and simplified

    Guidance on where to send pitches (email your editor, or use Submittable) was moved up to the start of the Proposal Process section, with wording slightly simplified.

    Authors who've previously published with HBR or have a relationship with an HBR editor typically submit their pitches directly to the editor by email. If you don't have a relationship with an HBR editor, you can send your pitch through [Submittable](https://harvardbusinessreview.submittable.com/submit).

    Authors who've previously published with HBR typically submit their pitches directly to their editor by email. If you don't have a relationship with an HBR editor, you can send your pitch through [Submittable](https://harvardbusinessreview.submittable.com/submit).

  6. ± CHANGEDPitch questions condensed from seven to five

    The list of questions a pitch should answer was consolidated from seven items to five, combining related questions.

    5. What is the source of your authority? On what previous work (either your own or others') does this idea build? 6. What research and/or examples will you provide to back up your idea? 7. What academic, professional, or personal experience will you draw on?

    4. What is the source of your authority? What academic, professional, or personal experience will you draw on? 5. What research and/or examples will you provide to back up your idea?

  7. − REMOVEDExplanation of rejection reasons and resubmission encouragement removed

    HBR no longer explains the common reasons proposals are declined, and dropped the line inviting authors to resubmit different ideas after a rejection.

    we often have to say no to good proposals due to time limitations, because they are not written for our target audience of senior leaders, or because they're not distinct enough from other pieces we have published. For this reason, we are not able to respond to every unsolicited proposal. If we've turned down something you've submitted, please feel free to try again with another idea. If our editors have said no multiple times, it may mean your work isn't a good fit for our audience.

    We receive many more submissions than we can publish. For this reason, we cannot respond to every unsolicited proposal.

  8. ± CHANGEDCopyright form now signed earlier, and idea-ownership assurance dropped

    Previously, authors signed a copyright form only right before publication, and the guidelines explicitly stated authors keep ownership of the underlying ideas in their articles. Now, the copyright form (and financial-relationship disclosure) is requested as soon as a proposal is picked up for development, and the statement that authors retain ownership of their underlying ideas has been removed.

    We ask our authors to disclose any financial relationships they have with companies cited in the proposed article. We will ask you to sign a copyright form before we publish your final piece, but authors continue to own the underlying ideas in their articles.

    At that point we ask our authors to sign a copyright form and to disclose any financial relationships they have with companies cited in the proposed article.

  9. − REMOVEDCitation rigor requirement dropped

    HBR no longer lists lack of rigorous citations as a reason it won't publish a piece.

    or that do not include rigorous citations (though these may not appear in the finished piece)

  10. ± CHANGEDAI-use section reworded

    The AI policy section was rewritten with new framing around copyright/legal restrictions, but the core rules are unchanged: contributors must disclose AI use, submissions aren't used to train AI models, and editors retain final publication decisions.

    We ask our contributors to forthrightly share whether and how they've used these tools with their editor and on our copyright form. We may use AI tools to support editorial workflows; submissions are not used to train AI models, and our editors make all publication decisions.

    Because of legal restrictions involving copyright protection, we ask our contributors to share whether and how they've used these tools with their editor and on our copyright form. Our editors may use AI tools to support their own editorial workflows, but we don't allow submissions to be used to train AI models, and our editors make all publication decisions.

  11. ± CHANGEDEditor byline changed

    Byline changed from Maureen Hoch, Editor, HBR.org, to Daniel McGinn, Editor, Harvard Business Review.

    Maureen Hoch Editor, HBR.org

    Daniel McGinn Editor, _Harvard Business Review_

  12. ± CHANGEDLast updated date changed

    Document date updated from June 10, 2026 to September 2026.

    _Last updated: June 10, 2026_

    _Last updated: September 2026_

Full text changes

COLOUR MARKS THE SEVERITY OF A FLAGGED CLAUSE · + AND − MARK ADDED AND REMOVED

11## Harvard Business Review's Guidelines for Contributors
22
3At _Harvard Business Review_, we equip ambitious senior leaders with evidence-backed insights that help them become smarter, more strategic, and more courageous in their work. To do that, we publish the insights of the foremost experts in management theory and practice.
3At _Harvard Business Review_, we equip ambitious senior leaders with evidence-backed insights that help them become smarter, more strategic, and more courageous in their work. To do that, we publish ideas from the foremost experts in management theory and practice.
44
5HBR covers a wide range of topics of vital interest to senior leaders. Among those subjects: strategy, leadership, organizational culture, operations, technological change, innovation, communication, decision-making, talent retention, and career transitions. We publish articles of varying lengths as well as graphics, podcasts, videos, newsletters, and just about any other medium that might help us share an idea effectively.
5Among the topics we cover: strategy, leadership, organizational culture, operations, technological change, innovation, communication, decision-making, talent retention, and career transitions. We publish articles of varying lengths, online and in print, as well as graphics, podcasts, videos, newsletters, and just about any other medium that might help us share an idea effectively.
66
77We look for five qualities when evaluating what to publish:
88
91. 1. **Expertise:** You don't have to be well-known to be a contributor, but you must have demonstrated expertise in the subject you're writing about.
10 2. **Evidence:** It's not enough to know your subject deeply-you have to demonstrate the validity of your insights and recommendations to the reader. Referring to supporting research is one good way to do this; describing relevant examples is another.
11 3. **Originality:** New ideas in management are rare-and encountering them is one of the primary reasons readers turn to HBR. If you're writing about a well-worn topic, we'll be looking for a unique argument or counterintuitive insight. We'll also be examining how well it builds on what we've already published and whether it might help our audience of senior leaders solve an urgent problem or make sense of global trends. The ideas should not be easily replicable by simply asking a large language model (LLM). One of the most common reasons we turn down proposals is because the findings or prescriptions aren't surprising.
12 4. **Usefulness:** HBR readers come to us not only to stay on top of new developments in management thinking but also to improve the way they and their organizations actually do things. Although many of our ideas are based on theory, we aim to publish ideas that are being put into practice. If you can explain your thinking so that a senior leader understands how to apply it in a real situation, that will make it more powerful.
13 5. **Good writing:** The best HBR articles are persuasive and a pleasure to read. Our readers are smart, skeptical, and busy, so if you aren't clear about the problem you're solving or don't otherwise capture their interest right away, they will move on to something else. We publish content first and foremost for senior leaders who are driving change in their organizations, so writing for that audience is essential.
91. **Expertise:** You don't have to be well-known to be a contributor, but you must have demonstrated expertise in the subject you're writing about.
102. **Evidence:** It's not enough to know your subject deeply-you have to demonstrate the validity of your insights and recommendations to the reader. Referring to supporting research-ideally empirical research you've done yourself-is one good way to do this; describing relevant examples is another. Most HBR authors are business school faculty or consultants, because these professions allow them to do deep research across a range of companies and industries.
113. **Originality:** If you're writing about a well-worn topic, we'll be looking for a unique argument or counterintuitive insight. We'll also be examining how well it builds on what we've already published. We reject many well-constructed proposals because we've already published something similar, we've published articles on the same general topic recently, or because the findings or prescriptions aren't new or surprising.
124. **Usefulness:** HBR readers come to us not only to stay on top of new developments in management thinking but also to improve the way they and their organizations actually do things. Although many of our ideas are based on theory, we aim to publish ideas that are being put into practice. If you can explain your thinking so that a senior leader understands how to apply it in a real situation, that will make it more powerful.
135. **Good writing:** The best HBR articles are persuasive and a pleasure to read. Our readers are smart, skeptical, and busy, so if you aren't clear about the problem you're solving or don't capture their interest right away, they will move on to something else. We publish content for senior leaders who are driving change in their organizations, so writing for that audience is essential.
1414
15Across all these dimensions, we strive to publish content that aligns with our organizational commitment to serve a diverse audience of leaders overseeing a diverse array of organizations. We look for pieces that are representative of that audience and their organizations in both the application of their ideas and in the examples that bring those ideas to life. We strive to ensure that our content avoids stereotypes, bias, and language that diminishes any particular group.
16
1715**Notes on the Proposal Process**
1816
17Authors who've previously published with HBR typically submit their pitches directly to their editor by email. If you don't have a relationship with an HBR editor, you can send your pitch through [Submittable](https://harvardbusinessreview.submittable.com/submit).
18
1919Individual authors and editors work differently, so there is no standard proposal process. Some authors prefer to start with a short pitch to determine whether an idea is a good fit, while others send a more detailed outline or a full draft. No matter what format you use, your pitch should answer the following questions, though it doesn't need to be in a Q&A format.
2020
21211. What is the central message of the article you propose to write?
222. What is important, useful, or counterintuitive about your idea?
233. What is new about your idea?
244. Why do senior leaders need to know about it? How can your idea be applied today?
255. What is the source of your authority? On what previous work (either your own or others') does this idea build?
266. What research and/or examples will you provide to back up your idea?
277. What academic, professional, or personal experience will you draw on?
222. What is new, important, or counterintuitive about your idea?
233. Why do senior leaders need to know about it? How useful or practical is this insight? Can it be applied today?
244. What is the source of your authority? What academic, professional, or personal experience will you draw on?
255. What research and/or examples will you provide to back up your idea?
2826
29Authors who've previously published with HBR or have a relationship with an HBR editor typically submit their pitches directly to the editor by email. If you don't have a relationship with an HBR editor, you can send your pitch through [Submittable](https://harvardbusinessreview.submittable.com/submit).
27We receive many more submissions than we can publish. For this reason, we cannot respond to every unsolicited proposal.
3028
31We receive many more submissions than we can publish, and we often have to say no to good proposals due to time limitations, because they are not written for our target audience of senior leaders, or because they're not distinct enough from other pieces we have published. For this reason, we are not able to respond to every unsolicited proposal. If we've turned down something you've submitted, please feel free to try again with another idea. If our editors have said no multiple times, it may mean your work isn't a good fit for our audience.
32
3329**How We Work with Authors**
3430
35When we see a proposal that has promise, we'll begin developing it with its author.
31When we see a proposal that has promise, we begin developing it with its author. At that point we ask our authors to sign a copyright form and to disclose any financial relationships they have with companies cited in the proposed article.
3632
37Authors say they find our editorial process to be rigorous, and you may be asked to do multiple rounds of revisions. Note that unlike academic journals, there is not a point in our process at which we formally "accept" an article or guarantee it will be published. In general, if we're asking you to move to the next stage-from a short pitch to a full outline to a full draft or revision, for example-it's because we're optimistic it's going to result in a publishable piece. But this is an art, not a science. Multiple editors must review each piece en route to publication, and sometimes we determine that a piece isn't right for us during the development and editing process. If that happens, you are free to take your article to another outlet.
33Authors say they find our editorial process to be rigorous, and you may be asked to do multiple rounds of revisions. Note that unlike academic journals, there is not a point in our process at which we formally "accept" an article or guarantee it will be published. Multiple editors must review each piece enroute to publication, and sometimes we determine that a piece isn't right for us during later stages. If that happens, you are free to take your article to another outlet.
3834
3935We retain final decision rights on headlines and art. If we rewrite your headline, it's because we believe the revised version will help your idea reach the audience it deserves.
4036
4137We also retain the right to decide whether the ideas will appear in both digital and print, in digital or print form only, or on another HBR platform.
4238
43We trust that the work you present to us is original. We don't publish pieces that have appeared elsewhere, that don't properly credit the ideas they present, that come across as promotional of your products or services, or that do not include rigorous citations (though these may not appear in the finished piece). We ask our authors to disclose any financial relationships they have with companies cited in the proposed article. We will ask you to sign a copyright form before we publish your final piece, but authors continue to own the underlying ideas in their articles.
39We trust that the work you present to us is original. We don't publish pieces that have appeared elsewhere, that don't properly credit the ideas they present, or that promote products or services.
4440
45On the use of generative AI, we understand our contributors may want to use these tools to brainstorm story ideas or pressure test their arguments. We believe in the transformative power of AI to change our business and many others, but the legal and ethical guardrails are constantly evolving. We ask our contributors to forthrightly share whether and how they've used these tools with their editor and on our copyright form. We may use AI tools to support editorial workflows; submissions are not used to train AI models, and our editors make all publication decisions. Critically, humans must always be responsible for the work we create. Our authors are accountable for the accuracy, integrity, sourcing, and originality of their content.
41We understand many of our contributors use AI tools. Because of legal restrictions involving copyright protection, we ask our contributors to share whether and how they've used these tools with their editor and on our copyright form. No matter what tools they've used, our authors are accountable for the accuracy, integrity, sourcing, and originality of their content. Our editors may use AI tools to support their own editorial workflows, but we don't allow submissions to be used to train AI models, and our editors make all publication decisions. Humans must always be responsible for the work we create.
4642
4743We appreciate your interest in HBR.
4844
4945Amy Bernstein
5046Editor in Chief, _Harvard Business Review_
5147
52Maureen Hoch
53Editor, HBR.org
48Daniel McGinn
49Editor, _Harvard Business Review_
5450
55_Last updated: June 10, 2026_
51_Last updated: September 2026_