Your paper finds something a government is arguing about right now. Maybe it is about childcare costs, housing, or how a benefit is designed. You send the PDF to the department's general inbox, or tag a minister in a post, and nothing happens.
That silence is rarely about the quality of the work. Policy staff work to deadlines set by bills, budgets and consultations, and a 30-page article that arrives at the wrong moment does not fit any of them. Here is how to get social science research in front of policymakers in a form, and at a time, they can use.
What Actually Gets Research Used
One useful summary of the evidence, mostly from health policy, is a 2014 systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers by Oliver and colleagues in BMC Health Services Research. The most common barriers were "poor access to good quality relevant research, and lack of timely research output." The most common facilitators were "collaboration between researchers and policymakers, and improved relationships and skills."
One line from that review is worth keeping in mind: "Contact, collaboration and relationship are a major facilitator of evidence use, reported in over 2/3 of all studies." In other words, the brief matters, but the person who reads it matters more. Everything below is easier if you already know one person in the team you are writing for.
What Policy Staff Actually Read
A policy brief is short by design. The University of York's policy brief guidance says briefs "typically contain around 1000 words, and in general, should not exceed two pages," because their readers "are often busy and brevity is crucial so they can swiftly identify your key messages."
Two pages is not a summary of your paper. It is an answer to their question, with your paper as the evidence. A structure that works:
- One sentence on the finding, in plain language, at the very top.
- One sentence on what you are asking for: the decision, change or next step your evidence supports.
- Three to five short paragraphs of supporting evidence, each with one number and where it comes from.
- What the evidence does not show: the limits, the population, the setting.
- Your name, a link to the full paper and a plain-language summary, and how to reach you.
A Worked Example
Say your paper (a made-up one) finds that families who lost a childcare subsidy were more likely to reduce paid work in the following year. A weak opening line is "This paper examines the labour market effects of childcare subsidy withdrawal." A useful one is "Families who lost the subsidy were more likely to cut their paid hours the next year." The ask follows: "If the department is reviewing the eligibility threshold, our data can show which families would be affected." That is two sentences a busy adviser can forward without rewriting.
If you have not written a plain-language version of your paper yet, our guide on how to write a plain language summary is the place to start, because the brief is built on it.
Time It to Inquiries and Consultations
The easiest moment to be read is when someone has formally asked for evidence. Legislatures and governments publish those moments, with rules for how to respond. At the time of writing (October 2026), the main routes look like this:
| Route | Where to find it | What the rules say |
|---|---|---|
| UK House of Commons select committee inquiries | The inquiry page on the committee's website | The official guidance (updated June 2022) asks for "section headings and numbered paragraphs," a Word file "not PDF," and evidence that addresses the inquiry's terms of reference, and says "most written evidence is published during an inquiry." |
| Canadian House of Commons committees | The committee's page, by online form or email | The guide for submitting briefs says a brief "should not exceed 10 pages," a longer one needs "a summary of no more than 500 words," and committees may have their own requirements. Recommendations should be "as specific as possible" and "summarized at the end." Either official language is fine, and briefs "may be posted on the Committees' website." |
| Government of Canada consultations | Consulting with Canadians | One place to search open, closed and planned federal consultations, filtered by subject and by department. |
| US federal rulemaking | The docket for the proposed rule | A guide from Johns Hopkins' Office of Federal Strategy advises naming the rule and its Regulation Identifier Number, using "data and evidence to support your argument," and offering "an alternative or modified approach." |
| UK government research questions | Each department's Areas of Research Interest | Departments publish the questions they want evidence on. An F1000Research article by Oliver, Boaz and Cuccato (updated January 2026) counts "over 2500 ARIs" published, and the DSIT list says the department welcomes "the submission of evidence that aligns with identified research topics." |
A few practical notes. Committee evidence is usually public, so write as if your submission will be read by everyone, including the people who disagree with you. University policy offices often add their own advice: Lancaster University's policy hub notes that "committees usually ask for less than 3,000 words," and suggests an executive summary of no more than a page. Submit early: committees and consultations set deadlines, and the UK guidance notes that a committee "does not have to accept your submission as evidence."
Areas of Research Interest are the closest thing to a standing invitation. If your finding answers one, say so in your first sentence and name the department's own question.
Formats That Travel Inside Government
Whatever you send will be forwarded, often several times, and often stripped of context on the way. Make each piece stand on its own:
- A two-page brief as a PDF or Word file (Word for UK committee submissions), with the finding and the ask on page one.
- One sentence that works as an email subject line or a briefing note bullet.
- One chart with a title that states the finding, so it still makes sense when it is pasted into someone else's slides.
- A link to a short public page with the plain-language summary and the full paper, so anyone further down the chain can check your source.
Then keep a record of where things went and what happened next. Our guide to showing your research reached people has a simple log that will also help when a funder asks about impact.
Where Amplify Fits
Amplify will not get you a meeting with a minister. What it can do is give you the forwardable pieces, all from your paper. You upload the PDF, and it generates a one-page, print-ready infographic, an audio brief, a video abstract of about 3 minutes and a vertical short, using that file alone, with no open-web filler. Every piece carries the title, the authors and a link back to the paper of record, which matters when your material is three forwards away from you.
Each format arrives as three variants you can edit line by line, so you can make the first sentence match your brief exactly. A person reviews every format before release, and nothing publishes until you approve it. Audio briefs come in English, with 21 more languages on request, including French and Spanish, which helps where government works in more than one language.
The embeddable widget puts every format beside the paper on your project or lab page, the page your brief links to. Its analytics show reads, listens, questions asked and languages, which gives you something concrete to report when you are asked what happened after you shared your work.
Policy moves when evidence is short, on time and from someone people can call. Write the two pages, find the open inquiry or consultation, and make it easy for the next reader to pass your finding on.
