Submit an Article for Review

What we accept

Articles. Original writing on AEO, AI search, or the technical work behind them. We want pieces from people who have actually run the programme, made the mistakes, and have numbers.

Corrections. If we have something wrong — a stale price, a capability marked "not documented" that you do in fact ship, a claim that does not hold — tell us. This applies to vendors we have assessed unfavourably as much as anyone.

Data. We would particularly like real contracted pricing (anonymised is fine) and completed measurement studies. If you have run our open citation-rate protocol, send the results, including results that contradict ours.

What we look for in an article

Original. Not published elsewhere, not generated filler.

Sourced. Claims backed by evidence, statistics with provenance. If you have a number, say where it came from and how many samples it rests on.

Practitioner-grounded. Written from doing the work. A piece that explains what broke and what you tried is worth more than one that summarises the category.

Specific. Real prompt sets, real fixes, real outcomes. Vagueness is the most common reason we decline.

Not a pitch. Vendor perspectives are welcome as clearly labelled vendor perspectives. We will not publish product marketing dressed as neutral analysis, and we are reasonably good at telling the difference.

Length is not a criterion. A tight 700-word account of one specific problem beats 2,500 words of survey.

What happens next

1. Your submission lands as a draft in our editorial queue.
2. We read it and check the claims.
3. We respond within roughly two weeks. Given volume, we may decline without detailed feedback.
4. If we accept, we edit for clarity and house style and come back to you with anything substantive before publishing.
5. Published pieces carry your byline, and any relevant commercial affiliation is disclosed inline on the page.

We do not pay for contributions at present, and we will say so plainly rather than implying otherwise.

Before you send

Worth reading first: our editorial policy for standards, and methodology for how we assess tools — particularly if you are submitting a correction to our comparison matrix, since the "not documented" marker means something specific.

Formatting

Markdown or plain text in the message field, or a link to a shared document. Include your sources inline. If your piece depends on data, tell us the sample size and the collection window; we will ask if you do not.