MC-Guide
Content Writing
Website 52: Scientificamerican.com
How Can You Earn Money Writing For “scientificamerican.com” Website
This guide shows you, step by step, how a beginner can learn to pitch and sell stories to scientificamerican.com.
You will learn what scientificamerican.com wants, how to test your idea, how to write a pitch, and how payment roughly works. You can use this like a small SOP.
Guide: How to Pitch & Earn Money Writing for Scientific American (Step-by-Step)
This long-form guide teaches you — a beginner science writer or freelancer — how to research Scientific American’s submission process, prepare publishable pieces, write a professional pitch, and increase your chances of being commissioned and paid.
It pulls the key rules and practical steps together into a compact SOP you can follow today. Important official pages are linked inline so you can jump to them quickly.
Quick source notes: core submission rules and the contact method are taken directly from Scientific American’s official submission page. :contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0} General scope (news/features/opinion) and editorial context from the site and About page. :contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1} Ethics and standards summary is based on Scientific American’s Standards & Ethics page. :contentReference[oaicite:2]{index=2} Typical freelance pay ranges are estimated from independent freelancer-market guides. :contentReference[oaicite:3]{index=3}
Section 1 · What Scientific American publishes
Formats: features, news, opinion, commentary, multimedia
Scientific American publishes a mix of in-depth feature articles, timely news coverage, expert opinion, and commentary for an audience that includes the science-literate public, researchers, and professionals. They publish both daily web content and a monthly magazine with longer features. :contentReference[oaicite:4]{index=4}
Typical piece types you might aim for:
- News & explainers (short, timely — often assigned or suggested to news editors).
- Features (longer investigative or explanatory pieces with reporting and sourcing).
- Opinion & commentary (argued, timely viewpoints; Scientific American provides a dedicated submission path for opinion pieces). :contentReference[oaicite:5]{index=5}
- Multimedia & special formats (podcasts, interactive explainers — often via editorial invitation).
SciAm readers expect clarity, scientific accuracy, and reporting that connects science to broader societal implications. Your piece should be evidence-driven and properly sourced.
Section 2 · Read the official submission instructions
What the site explicitly asks you to do
Scientific American’s official submission page instructs prospective contributors to email drafts and pitches to the addresses listed on that page. The page specifically mentions sending a draft plus a concise pitch that explains the issue you want to explore, your main argument, and why the piece matters to science or its role in society. :contentReference[oaicite:6]{index=6}
Important practical points from the submission page (read these on their site and keep the page open while prepping a pitch):
- Send a clear summary of the main argument and why it matters. :contentReference[oaicite:7]{index=7}
- If it is an opinion piece, use the specific
opinion@sciam.comcontact noted on the page. :contentReference[oaicite:8]{index=8} - Do not spam multiple reminders; editors respond if they decide to commission. :contentReference[oaicite:9]{index=9}
Section 3 · Shape an idea that fits SciAm
From topic -> question -> reporting plan
Scientific American is not a personal blog — it’s a magazine. Shape ideas that answer a concrete question supported by reporting, analysis, or expert perspective. Start with: “What does my article show that readers don’t already know, and why does it matter?”
Is it newsworthy or insightful?
If your idea reports new findings, or reframes the importance/implication of known results for society, policy, medicine, or technology, it’s likely a better fit than a purely tutorial-style piece.
Can you report it?
Can you quote primary sources (papers, interviews with authors, official statements) and link to evidence? SciAm values reporting grounded in sources and expert voices.
Is the angle appropriately broad but nuanced?
Scientific American aims to explain scientific developments to an informed public — aim for nuance rather than clicky oversimplification.
Example good ideas:
- A feature explaining the limitations of a high-profile study, with interviews showing how practice should change.
- An explainer about how a new technology could affect healthcare access, with sourced evidence and counterarguments.
- An opinion that reinterprets a policy decision in light of peer-reviewed literature (if submitted to opinion@sciam.com). :contentReference[oaicite:11]{index=11}
Section 4 · Build a small portfolio & sample pieces
Why editors care about prior clips
If you are just starting, editors will want to see that you can finish and fact-check a piece. Publish 2–4 strong samples on your blog, Medium, TheOpenNotebook, The Conversation, or trade outlets before approaching SciAm.
- Clear headline, lede, and a short nutgraf that explains the piece’s point.
- Primary sourcing: interviews, papers, reports, and properly linked references.
- Notes about your reporting: who you talked to, how you verified claims, and any data sources.
- Polished prose — editors will quickly judge clarity and structure.
- The Open Notebook – resources and examples (also great for learning science reporting).
- The Conversation – republishing academic expertise to broader audiences.
- Medium / Substack / Personal blog – good for full-length, polished samples.
Tip: include a one-paragraph “reporting note” at the end of each sample that lists your interviews, data, and any embargoed sources (if applicable). This reassures editors that you did the work.
Section 5 · Pitch step-by-step
Exact workflow: from outline to send
Follow this compact SOP when you’re ready to pitch. Keep each email short, specific, and professional.
Choose the right editor or contact
Use the official submission page to find the right channel. For opinion pieces, Scientific American lists opinion@sciam.com. For other pieces, follow the submission page’s directions or use the contact page to identify relevant editors. :contentReference[oaicite:12]{index=12}
Craft a one-paragraph lede and a 3–6 line pitch
Your pitch should include: the nutgraf (what the article argues), why SciAm readers care, and what reporting you will do. If you already have a draft, attach it (SciAm sometimes asks for drafts). :contentReference[oaicite:13]{index=13}
Attach or link to samples and your short bio
Attach 1–3 clips (PDFs or links), a short author bio (one sentence: role, notable experience, email), and a reporting plan (who you’ll interview, key sources, timeline).
Send a polite, concise email
Keep it less than 300 words in the body. Editors receive many emails; clarity and brevity work in your favor.
Sample pitch email (copy + adapt)
Subject: Pitch — [Proposed Headline]: one-line nutgraf
Hi [Editor name],
I’m [Your name], a freelance science writer/PhD/health reporter (one-line bio). I’d like to pitch a [feature/opinion/explainer] titled “[Proposed Headline]”.
NUTGRAF (1–2 sentences): This piece argues that [main argument]. It matters because [who it affects / why SciAm readers should care].
WHAT I WILL REPORT (3–5 bullets):
- Primary sources: [paper DOI, dataset]
- Interviews: [list types of experts or organizations]
- Data or examples: [lab, field study, case, region]
EARLY OUTLINE (3–6 sections):
1) Lede & present the puzzle
2) Evidence and expert views
3) Counterpoints / alternate explanations
4) Practical implications / takeaways
Links to recent clips: [link1], [link2]
Draft (attached) or timeline for reporting: I can deliver a full draft by [date].
Thanks for considering — I’d be happy to revise the angle to fit your reader.
Best,
[Your name] — [location] — [email] — [one-line credential]
Section 6 · Money: pay, negotiating, and alternatives
What you can realistically expect
Exact rates for Scientific American assignments vary by type, length, and whether the piece is solicited or commissioned. Independent market guides suggest competitive rates: news and short pieces for major science outlets are usually strongly paid compared with small blogs, and feature rates are higher — often several hundred to a few thousand dollars depending on length and assignment. Use those public guides to set your expectations and negotiate professionally. :contentReference[oaicite:14]{index=14}
- If an editor offers a flat fee, ask politely if the fee is final and whether revisions are included.
- For commissioned features, clarify payment schedule: invoice after acceptance, and whether there is an advance.
- Consider asking whether usage rights and republishing are allowed for your portfolio.
- Use a SciAm byline as leverage for higher freelance rates with other outlets or clients.
- Create sponsored explainers or courses (disclose sponsorships clearly; SciAm will not tolerate hidden promotion).
- Turn a strong feature into paid speaking, consulting, or a short e-book — SciAm clips add credibility.
Note: public pay estimates vary by year and assignment. Always confirm payment terms directly with the editor assigned to your piece. :contentReference[oaicite:15]{index=15}
Section 7 · Ethics, fact-checking & AI
Scientific American’s editorial standards and what they expect
Scientific American maintains clear standards: accuracy, no fabrication or plagiarism, careful treatment of sources, and transparent corrections if errors are found. Editors will expect you to back claims with primary sources and will often fact-check carefully. Read the Standards & Ethics page before you pitch or submit to ensure you follow their expectations. :contentReference[oaicite:16]{index=16}
- Do not invent sources, quotes, or data.
- Do not submit AI-generated text as your final draft without thorough verification and disclosure if requested by an editor.
- Do not republish another author’s reporting without permission and proper credit.
- Use AI for brainstorming or editing, but verify every fact, data point, and quote yourself.
- If AI helped substantially, be prepared to explain how you used it and what checks you applied.
- When in doubt, ask the editor about their AI policy during commissioning or in your pitch.
Section 8 · Practical checklist & follow-up templates
Before you hit send: the final micro-SOP
Follow-up email (if you haven’t heard after ~3–4 weeks)
Subject: Quick follow-up — pitch: [Proposed Headline]
Hi [Editor name],
I hope you’re well. I wanted to follow up briefly on the pitch I sent on [date] about “[Proposed Headline]”. I’d be glad to provide more detail or adjust the angle. If you’re not the right contact, would you kindly point me to the best editor?
Thanks for your time,
[Your name] — [email] — [one-line bio]
Section 9 · Resources & useful links
Official & recommended reading (click to open)
- Scientific American — Submission Instructions. (Follow this first.) :contentReference[oaicite:20]{index=20}
- Scientific American — Standards & Ethics. (Editorial rules and corrections policy.) :contentReference[oaicite:21]{index=21}
- About Scientific American. (Scope and publication types.) :contentReference[oaicite:22]{index=22}
- Contact page. (General contact & reprints.) :contentReference[oaicite:23]{index=23}
- Freelance Market Guide — Scientific American (pay guide & contacts). (Independent pay references.) :contentReference[oaicite:24]{index=24}
- The Open Notebook — reporting how-tos and examples.
- Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) — ethics resources.
- Columbia Journalism Review / resources — pitches & queries.
- Springer Nature (publisher) — publisher context for SciAm. :contentReference[oaicite:25]{index=25}