How to Write a Letter to the Editor That Gets Published

A letter to the editor is short, fast and public. Editors publish the ones that make one clear, evidenced point about a recent article and arrive on time.

Guide · 10 min read · Directive Publications Editorial Team

What a letter to the editor is for

A letter to the editor is the formal way for a reader to respond to something a journal has published. It sits in the journal's correspondence section, it is usually short, and in journals that PubMed indexes it can become part of the searchable record attached to the article it discusses.

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) treats this as a core function of a journal. Its recommendations on correspondence say journals should give readers a way to submit comments, questions or criticisms about published articles, and that the authors of the article "have a responsibility to respond to substantial criticisms" raised there. The same section allows editors to reject correspondence that is irrelevant, uninteresting or lacking cogency, and to screen comments that are discourteous, inaccurate or libellous.

That gives you the test every letter has to pass. It must be relevant to a specific article, it must say something readers of that article would want to know, and it must make its case clearly and courteously.

Letters are also one of the most accessible formats for early career researchers. You do not need a dataset or a year of work. You need a careful reading of a recent article and one point worth making.

Check the journal's correspondence rules first

Correspondence rules are stricter than most authors expect and they differ from journal to journal. Look them up in the instructions for authors before you write a single sentence, because they decide how much room you have and whether you are still in time.

As an example, JAMA's instructions for authors set out these rules for letters about a recent article in that journal:

Other journals set different numbers, and some accept online comments or rapid responses in place of, or alongside, printed letters. Write down five things for your target journal before you start: the deadline, the word limit, the reference limit, the author limit, and whether new data are allowed. If you have original findings rather than a comment, look for a research letter or short report format. JAMA, for instance, has a separate research letter format of up to 800 words and 10 references.

The AI rule is worth noticing. Journal policies on AI use differ, and a format this short and personal is one where some journals rule it out entirely. Read the policy for your journal rather than assuming the rules for research articles apply.

Choose one point worth making

A common problem is trying to make too many points. The author has found four or five problems and tries to fit them all into a few hundred words, so none is argued properly.

Pick one. A publishable letter usually does one of these things:

• Identifies an error or inconsistency. A number in the abstract that does not match the table, a denominator that changes between sections, a figure that does not show what the text says.
• Offers an alternative explanation. A confounder the authors did not discuss, a selection effect, or a measurement issue that could produce the same result.
• Questions an interpretation. The conclusion goes further than the data, for example by drawing a causal claim from an observational design.
• Adds relevant published evidence. Other studies, including ones the authors did not cite, that support, complicate or contradict the finding.
• Draws out an implication. What the finding means for practice, policy or a specific patient group that the article did not address.

Then ask yourself whether the point matters to someone who has read the original article. If it changes how they would read or use the findings, it is worth a letter. If it is a matter of style, or something the authors flagged in their limitations, it probably is not.

How to write a letter to the editor, step by step

1. Check the correspondence rules. Note the deadline, word limit, reference limit and author limit for your target journal, as described above. Set your draft target below the word limit to leave room for editing.
2. Choose one point. Write it as a single sentence before you write anything else. If you cannot, you are not ready to draft.
3. Name the article in the first sentence. Cite the article by title and reference number, then state your point. The editor should know within two sentences which article you mean and what you are saying about it.
4. Support the point with evidence. Point to the exact passage, table or figure. Quote numbers accurately. Back your argument with published sources or reasoning a reader can check, and use your limited references on the ones that carry the argument.
5. Say what would resolve it. End with a specific question the authors can answer or a clarification or analysis that would settle the issue. This gives the authors something concrete to reply to, and it shows the editor that your aim is to improve the record rather than to score a point.
6. Declare interests and submit. The ICMJE recommendations expect people who submit correspondence to declare competing interests, just as article authors do. Our guide to the ICMJE disclosure form covers what to declare. Then check the final word count against the limit and submit through the journal's correspondence route, which may differ from its main manuscript system.

A template you can adapt

Use this as a skeleton, not a script. Each bracket should become one or two sentences.

To the Editor:

In their recent article, [authors] reported [the finding, in one sentence] [reference 1]. [Your point, in one sentence.]

[The evidence: the specific table, figure or passage, with numbers quoted exactly, and what it shows.]

[Why it matters: how the point changes the interpretation or use of the findings, with up to two supporting references.]

[What would resolve it: a specific question for the authors, or the analysis or clarification you are asking for.]

[Names, degrees, affiliations and the corresponding author's email, in the format the journal requires.]

[Competing interests statement.]

At JAMA's 400-word limit, that is roughly one short paragraph per bracket. If a section grows beyond that, it is usually carrying a second point that belongs in a different letter or nowhere.

Write about the work, not the authors

The tone of a letter matters as much as the argument. Editors decide what to publish, and a letter that reads as a personal attack is easy to decline under the ICMJE's allowance for screening discourteous comments.

A few habits keep the tone right:

• Describe what the article says, not what the authors intended. "The abstract reports a 12% reduction, but Table 2 shows 9%" is checkable. "The authors overstate their results" is an accusation.
• Assume an innocent explanation. A mismatch may be a typo, a different denominator, or an analysis you missed in the supplement. Read the supplementary material before you write.
• Ask rather than assert when you are not sure. "Could the authors clarify whether…" invites a useful reply. A confident claim that turns out to be wrong damages your credibility in public.
• Leave out adjectives. Words like "flawed", "misleading" or "egregious" add heat and no information. Let the evidence carry the argument.
• Acknowledge what the study does well, briefly. One clause is enough, and only if it is sincere.

Remember that your letter will usually be sent to the authors, who may reply in print. Write something you would be comfortable defending next to their response.

When a letter is the wrong route

A public letter is the right tool for scientific disagreement. It is not the right tool for every problem.

• You suspect misconduct. If you think data were fabricated, images manipulated or text plagiarised, write privately to the editor with your evidence rather than making the allegation in a letter. Journals have processes for investigating these concerns, and a public accusation before any investigation can harm people who turn out to be innocent.
• The error is in your own paper. Authors fix their own errors through the journal's correction process, not by writing a letter about their article. Our guide on correcting the published record explains corrections, expressions of concern and retractions.
• You missed the deadline or the journal declined. Comments can still be made through other routes, such as a journal's online commenting, if it has one, or post-publication review platforms. Our guide to post-publication peer review covers the options and their etiquette.
• Your point needs more than a few hundred words. A substantial reanalysis may be better as a research letter, a short report or a full commentary, if the journal publishes those.

What happens after you submit

The editor first decides whether the letter is relevant, interesting and clearly argued. Editors may edit letters for length, grammar and style, which the ICMJE recommendations expressly allow, so check the proofs carefully if your letter is accepted.

If the journal sends your letter to the original authors, their reply may be published alongside it. Do not expect to have the last word. The ICMJE notes that journals may want to set time limits for responding to published material and for debate on a given topic, which keeps correspondence manageable.

Once published in a journal that PubMed indexes, your letter can be linked to the article it discusses. The National Library of Medicine's page on linked citations in PubMed explains that it treats letters inspired by a previous article as comments, and that comment citations carry a "Comment on" link to the original while the original carries a "Comment in" link back. Readers who find the article can find your letter.

If the letter is declined, it usually cannot simply be redirected to another journal, because correspondence sections such as JAMA's are for letters about articles in that journal. Consider instead whether the point would work as a comment on another platform, or whether it has grown into something larger.

Letters are a small format, but they show that you read critically and can argue precisely in public. Write them carefully, list them accurately on your CV under correspondence rather than as original research, and treat each one as a short exercise in the skills that make full papers stronger. When you are ready to submit full-length work, Directive Publications sets out its requirements in its author guidelines.