Editorial Guidelines Revamped For Your Success!

In order to provide additional clarity to help your article writing efforts flourish, we have revamped the Editorial Guidelines!

Chock-full of resources, details, and step-by-step instructions, the revised Editorial Guidelines is a shared effort between Expert Authors and our Editorial Team.

You, the Expert Author, raise the bar daily with quality, informative, and original content. We analyze the data produced by your article writing efforts to supply our 400,000+ Expert Authors with Editorial Guidelines.

So, you might be thinking: Has EzineArticles suddenly changed everything in the Editorial Guidelines?

The revised Editorial Guidelines use the time-tested guidelines of old, but are described in greater detail to ensure your full comprehension.

Check out the following video for a guided tour of the revamped Editorial Guidelines!

Downloadable Versions:
WMV Format     MOV Format     MV4 Format     MP3 Format

Here’s the new Editorial Guidelines breakdown:

Content Qualifications – As an introduction to the Editorial Guidelines, the Content Qualifications sections discusses how to keep your articles unique and informative, which in turn builds your credibility and a loyal audience.

Article Content – This section provides all the do’s and don’ts while writing the content of your articles.

Author Name – Your author name is an essential extension of your brand. These guidelines will help you in branding as well as choosing pen names and managing ghostwriters.

Format – Providing do’s and don’ts of article titles, optimizing your article body, how to use keywords naturally, tips for your resource box, as well as link strategies, the Format guidelines ensure you don’t let one bit of your article go to waste.

The Editorial Guidelines are constantly updated to increase your credibility, to ensure a positive user-experience, expand your exposure, assists in faster article reviews, and ultimately helps you write quality original articles to increase traffic back to your website or blog.

Go to our Editorial Guidelines page to check them out!

To your success!


Keith Chopping writes:

This is so important and perhaps the very best advice for any of us is to write engaging content for PEOPLE . Not search engines ! I’ve done it myself , but too many articles, posts and websites seem only to have SEO as a prime aim.

Comment provided October 5, 2011 at 12:26 PM


Wolfgang writes:

That’s spelled it out nice and clear, a good indicator of your content is your analytics account if you have a high bounce rate, your content is not good, if however you have a low bounce rate, then people are staying on your site to read it.

Comment provided October 5, 2011 at 3:33 PM


Kenneth Watson writes:

I have read all of your training publications with pleasure. I can’t say the basic writing training has actually helped me but they have certainly reassured me that you people know what you are doing. Much of what you teach is exactly what i taught my students over 30 years in the classroom as an English Language and Literature teacher. The sessions that have been particularly helpful to me are the ones pertaining specifically to using articles as a marketing ploy. Thank you….kw

Comment provided October 5, 2011 at 6:54 PM


Richard Frost writes:

This is a much-appreciated update. Nonetheless, we all know that there will remain subjective cases that require your editors to make judgment calls, and two different editors might come down on different sides of an issue.

I experienced an unexpected rejection recently that illustrates this problem. From time to time in previous articles, I have made a reference (not a link) within the article body to another, related article that I have already written on ezines. This had never been a problem. A few days ago, all of a sudden, it was.

I was informed that my reference was deemed overly promotional because it occurred in the article body rather than in the introduction! This blew me away, because I had never been aware of any special rules for the introduction. Furthermore, your linking policy allows links to relevant material within the article body, and the new guidelines even allow one of these links to be self-serving. Again, we were not even dealing with a link in this case.

The new guidelines do seem to partially address this issue, but I remain intensely frustrated that an article was rejected for something that had been approved – with no significant difference – several times before (including the very recent past). Your editor, in my humble opinion, drew a distinction without a difference.

It has been observed before by very experienced authors that the finer nuances of your editorial philosophy are only revealed here, in this blog, but we do not all have the time to troll through every blog post discovering these pearls of wisdom. I realize that the guidelines could become unwieldy if you attempted to address every possible scenario, but I hope you will remain sensitive to issues that we authors bring to your attention and improve the guidelines when needed.

Finally, I would like to see editors engage in a two-way conversation with authors when problems do arise, and even – gasp! – admit that there might be room for interpretation occasionally. In law enforcement, there is such a thing as a verbal warning, precluding the issuance of a ticket that leaves a permanent stain on one’s record. You, too, could let somebody off once in a while; i.e. go ahead and approve an article after “flagging it down.”

Comment provided October 5, 2011 at 7:20 PM



We appreciate your candid response. :) With human reviews (a minimum of 2 per article) there will be some inconsistencies but we work on training our editors daily. If issues like this arise, we are more than happy to address them and educate our editors and make the necessary changes if need be.

The Editorial Guidelines are ‘guidelines’ and not ‘rules’. We would write something equivalent to War and Peace if we touched every area. ;) Our Member Support team is available to address any and all concerns you have so feel free to contact us. We are also working to change the way we address “flagged’ areas in your articles. Those changes will be coming soon.

I will take a look at your account and address your specific issue with you privately.


Richard Frost writes:

Thank you. Your comments reveal a heartening degree of concern to maintain positive relationships and constructive dialogue with your authors. So much of what we do online is impersonal and socially atomizing; it makes for a refreshing change to encounter some humanity.


Elisabeth Kuhn writes:

Thanks for this update. I appreciate that they are very clear and explicit. This will make it easy to stay on the good side of your editors.

Comment provided October 5, 2011 at 7:31 PM


Mac McGovern writes:

I like and appreciate the clarification of guidelines. If I may make a recommendation, when editing articles, I believe it may be beneficial if the author indicated why the article is being changed. I often make changes after my article is published because of formatting or to make simple adjustments. Since there is so much emphasis on the submission of the article and the impact it has on different author levels, I wonder the impact editing has on level determination.

Comment provided October 5, 2011 at 8:22 PM


unbrokenheart writes:

I found this information extremely beneficial. It was complete, concise, and answered many of my questions. Thank you so much for providing this very valuable writing tool.

Comment provided October 5, 2011 at 8:46 PM


Steven Walker writes:

I am surprised that when something is approved, that it isn’t revised or edited more clearly. I have had occasion to have some editor say that they didn’t find a word suitable and so removed it. They then published my article with a word missing in the sentence. I went back to revise it and insert one word in the text and it took a whole re editing session for them to approve my one word addition. Then they published it with the word missing as if they didn’t read my resubmission. Also, I can’t help what an author I am quoting says or how he spells something. If I change it, I am editing his work which is illegal for me to do with a copyrighted quotation. i am glad you are improving your editing and I think your priorities would be the first thing needed to be changed.
I am not trying to do anything but be constructive, respectfully submitted,
Steven Walker

Comment provided October 5, 2011 at 8:54 PM



Someone from our Member Support team will be in touch with you shortly to address this with you.


Dee writes:

I really appreciate this recent update to the editorial guidelines. Being fairly new to the EzineArticles process and wanting to closely adhere to the rules, I found it a bit time-consuming to seek out clarifications on some points. With this update, that particular task is a whole lot easier.

Comment provided October 5, 2011 at 10:37 PM


poch peralta writes:

Thank you for the effort EzineArticles.

Comment provided October 5, 2011 at 11:08 PM


arnold writes:


Comment provided October 5, 2011 at 11:37 PM


Karen writes:

Took a while to read through your guidelines. Very clearly explained. Looks reasonable if you want quality content instead of for SEO purposes.

Comment provided October 6, 2011 at 2:18 AM


harish desai writes:

http://www.EzineArticles.com should now become a paying website.

the authors should be paid for posting articles on its site.

there are many other websites which offer this facility and EzineArticles should also follow suit.


Comment provided October 6, 2011 at 4:24 AM


Graham Kelly writes:

Your update has prompted me to read fully your guidlines which I had not found time to do before. There are a lot of useful tips that apply to any form of writing.
Hopefully, now I have read the guidlines properly I will be able to get most of my articles accepted first time.
Thanks for this useful update.

Comment provided October 6, 2011 at 8:21 AM


rsuerte writes:

It’s my passion to come up with articles that have a seamless blend of topnotch writing and powerful SE Optimization. This is another prudent step-up not just for EzineArticles but also for us authors. Keeps driving me to write more and more high-quality and engine-magnet articles.

Comment provided October 6, 2011 at 10:53 AM


Linda Smith writes:

I see this over and over again, “self serving.”

Which is more self-serving?

A writer who places a link or two to other article sites, their blog or website, or even an affiliate link in the article itself?

The article submission sites who load up the page where your article is published with Google ads, and the fact that most of the ads do not even relate to the article content?

Comment provided October 6, 2011 at 5:28 PM


unbrokenheart writes:

Excellent commentary Linda, I had not even thought of that part of the equation.


Mark Demers writes:

I love the guidelines it helps the authors to know exactly what they need to do. I don`t like complaining but what bothers me and slows my submission to EzineArticles is the length of time it takes to have the article go through the all steps for acceptance. This time needs to be shortened, last time it took 2 weeks.
Other than that EzineArticls is excellent for generating targeted traffic through proper keyword placement and usage.

Comment provided October 8, 2011 at 1:59 PM


Mark –

I see you’re a Basic-Level author. You’ll be happy to know that the turn-around time decreases for higher level authors, so as your experience and status increase, your approval time on articles will decrease. Higher-level authors’ articles move to the front of the queue. Premium and Diamond authors form the head of the line.

Also, bear in mind that approval time is directly related to the number of articles we are receiving at any particular time. Slower approvals usually mean that we are receiving an inordinate number of article submissions. Rest assured, in those circumstances we do our best to move articles through the pipeline.

Finally, if you’d like to move to the front of the line faster, you might consider becoming a Premium subscriber or applying for Diamond Level status.



Mark Demers writes:

Thank you for your reply and I will take this into serious consideration when my schedule allows me to .

I have another question which is very perplexing to me- Previously I submitted an article and was rejected for the reason of you do not accept articles which are about receiving tv on pc . However searching on Google I`ve noticed many articles on this subject in your directory and I`m wondering – Why my article may have been rejected for this reason when others are clearly being published?
So I figured you didn`t accept these tv on pc articles so I submitted them elsewhere.
This was the only reason they gave me and it makes me wonder-
Should I have tried again?



Editorial standards rise daily and what was once accepted may not be accepted today. For questions related to instances like this I would recommend that you contact our Member Support team. They’ll provide you with a detailed explanation as to why your article was not accepted.


Mark Demers writes:

Thank you Penny for taking the time to reply to me.
I will follow your recommendation. I was just trying to figure out where I stand in this matter.
Thanks again.


Faisal Khan writes:

Please upload it to Youtube too


Comment provided October 11, 2011 at 9:50 PM


Faisal –

We upload all of our videos to YouTube. Usually there’s a 1-2 week delay after they’ve been posted on the Blog. The Editorial Guidelines video should be posted early next week.



Linda Smith writes:

Trying to figure out how to use affiliate links is virtually impossible.

Comment provided October 12, 2011 at 9:52 AM


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

Please read our comment policy before commenting.