Onboarding for Ukraine Section Analysts

Welcome to European Relations‘ Ukraine Section! We are excited to have you on board. This guide will introduce you to our procedures, communication channels, and best practices, enabling you to quickly feel confident in your new role. Please note: Authors on European Relations are generally referred to as (Regular) Contributors, whereas team members in the European Relations Sections hold the title of Analyst.

Here, you can read more about the European Relations Association (ERA), our mission, and our values.

✅ New Analysts’ Checklist

To get started smoothly, please go through the following steps:

  1. Join the WhatsApp group of the Ukraine Section to stay connected and receive updates.
  2. Familiarise yourself with the information provided on this onboarding page and the Review Guidelines.
  3. Upload a high-resolution portrait photo on your profile page in the Network so we can add you as a member of the new Ukraine Section on the website’s About page.
  4. Check in with Sofia (Section Lead) on the Network by sending her a message after reading this onboarding page to confirm that everything works, that you have access to the Ukraine Section’s Network spaces, and that all the information is clear. You will receive information about your onboarding meeting with Sofia (lead of the Ukraine Section) and Nicolás (editor-in-chief), where we will briefly go through the editorial process together and answer any questions you may have.
  5. Upload your Volunteer Agreement on this page. The Volunteer Agreement is intended to serve as a flexible, informal agreement between the Editors and European Relations. As mentioned in the agreement, we can adjust the workload at any time if communicated with the section leader.
  6. Please install the Grammarly app, as we use it to support the writing and reviewing process. (Find more information below.)

Create Your Author Profile

Start by setting up your profile in the Network:

  • Upload a photo to your Network profile (optional) – A clear, high-quality, and professional portrait photo helps readers connect with you.
  • Fill out your author bio – Tell us who you are in 2–3 sentences (your background, interests, studies, or experience). Please write in the third person and include your academic (and professional) background, areas of expertise and interest, and, if you want, a personal fact about you.
  • Add social links – You can include your LinkedIn or other professional platforms so people can connect with you.

 👤 Your photo and bio will be shown on your public author profile

Communication within the Ukraine Section and on the European Relations Network

  • Please join the Ukraine Section WhatsApp group for quick communication if you have not done yet (link in onboarding email).
  • Questions: You can always ask questions in the group about writing, the revision process, technical issues, or suggestions for improvement. The group is also a good place for questions and proposals because they may be relevant to other editors as well. Of course, you can also always write to Sofia or Nicolás personally on WhatsApp or in the Network.
  • Reliability: Since all of us volunteer at European Relations, no one expects instant replies or reviews done overnight. What matters is clear communication: you can always post in the group if, due to extreme situations at work or university, you have no time at all to work on an article. In such cases, you can also pause for a short period. What matters is that we can plan accordingly rather than not hearing from you.
  • Tone: Communication should be professional yet collegial. Always address others respectfully.
  • Monthly Meetings: Please take part in the polls so we can find a time that works for most of us. Regular participation is important, as meetings are where we discuss key changes and improve our work together. If you can’t make it, just let the group know; if several people are affected, we may schedule a follow-up meeting shortly after.
  • Communication on the Network: We use the European Relations Network to communicate with the authors, editors, or other members of European Relations. You can send a direct message to any member of the Network. Above the featured image in the Ukraine Section’s space in the Network, you also find useful links to the WordPress înstruction page, the Submission and Review Guidelines etc.
Network chat

Submit Your First Article Idea

To get started with publishing, head over to the Article Idea Dashboard, which is our dedicated space for tracking new article ideas.

Here’s how it works:

  • Click on the “Submit idea” button.
  • Fill out the short form with:
    • Working title
    • A brief description of your idea, including the format (Analysis, Opinion, Explainer, News); you can find all necessary information on article formats and other requirements for Blog articles in our Submission Guidelines.
  • Click Submit – and that’s it!
List Article Idea

By tracking article ideas and ongoing article projects we try to avoid double-coverage of the exact same topic. You can also take a look at other article ideas to get inspiration.

The Writing Process

  • Timeline for articles: Analysts usually write around one to two articles per month, depending on the length and on how research-intensive the articles are. As mentioned above, if, due to extreme situations at work or university, you have no time at all to work on an article. In such cases, you can also pause for a short period. What matters is that we can plan accordingly rather than not hearing from you.
  • The Editorial Process at a glance (this applies to publications on European Relations in general; differences for the Ukraine Section are outlined below):
  1. The Section lead (Sofia) or the Editor-in-Chief (Nicolás) assigns an editor to a new article.
  2. The assigned editor conducts the review in Google Docs, following the Review Guidelines.
  3. The editor contacts the author via the European Relations Network and supports them in improving the article until it is ready for publication.
  4. The section lead or editor-in-chief gives the article a final read-through and publishes it. If they still identify issues, they will get back to the assigned editor.
  • Writing: Please follow the Submission Guidelines and the Review Guidelines, which serve as a transparent checklist to ensure consistency, and quality across all articles on European Relations. These guidelines also help the authors, who also have access to them, understand exactly what is expected for publication.
    • Important: The Submission and Review Guidelines are used for the general publications on European Relations as well as for publications of the Sections.
    • Publications of the Ukraine Section address the intersection of Ukraine and Europe, for example, by examining European influences on Ukraine, the resonance of Ukrainian affairs across Europe, or Ukraine’s engagement with the EU, member states, European-focused organisations, or similar topics. The Review Guidelines must be understood through the lens of this thematic focus.
  • Grammarly: We use the free version of Grammarly to support article reviews, and also for authors the tool can be helpful for catching final typos. Please install the app and use it to check punctuation, spelling, and grammar. Grammarly is only a helpful tool; it doesn’t replace careful editing, but it can catch those last little typos that are sometimes human to miss.

Policy on Sources & Linking

Here is further information about our Policy on Sources & Linking:

Policy on Sources & Linking

1. When a Source Is Required…

Editors should verify that sources are provided for:

  • Facts not widely known or self-evident (e.g. “The EU’s GDP grew by 0.2% in Q1 2024” → requires a source).
  • Data, figures, or statistics (always link to the original dataset/report where possible).
  • Quotations or paraphrased ideas from other authors, journalists, or scholars.
  • Events, news, and developments (e.g. elections, court rulings, policy changes).
  • Arguments or positions of others (e.g. “Critics argue that…” should link to a specific identifiable critic or publication).
  • Specialist knowledge outside general public awareness (e.g. EU treaty articles, niche institutions, or policy instruments).

No source is required for:

  • General common knowledge (e.g. “Paris is the capital of France” Or “The German GDP is higher than the French GDP”).
  • The author’s own interpretation, reasoning, or opinion (though these must build on sourced facts).

–> General rule: Authors should provide a source wherever they most likely needed one themselves to find or verify the information while writing. However, it is also important to identify which pieces of information may not be essential to the argument. These can, in some cases, be omitted altogether or may not require a source.

This also means: Avoid over-sourcing (every sentence linked), which interrupts reading flow. Authors should link where it adds clarity, traceability, and verifiability.

Keep in mind that our readership is largely politically interested and may have a basic education in political, economic, international, legal, and related topics. However, since our articles cover a broad range of subjects and often delve into specific information in greater depth, most readers will therefore need a certain degree of context, framing, and linked sources in order to properly understand the article and trace the origins of important information. This should be taken into account when writing or editing.

2. Sources by Article Type:

News Article (250–750 words):

  • Expectation: A compact text anchored in verifiable facts.
  • Source practice: Every key claim (new development, number, statement by an actor) must be traceable through a linked source.
  • Balance: A news article often relies on a few solid sources (press releases, official documents, reputable media).
  • Editor’s eye: If a reader cannot verify the main facts from the provided links, sourcing is insufficient.

Analysis (1500–2500 words):

  • Expectation: A deeper argument that interprets developments.
  • Source practice: Analyses should normally build on a broad evidence base, including:
    • Primary sources (e.g., official data, institutional reports, legal texts, speeches, data of what is analysed, …)
    • Secondary sources (e.g., academic analysis or commentary, think tank reports, high-quality journalism, …)
  • Balance: Every major point of the argument should be anchored in at least one source, but not every sentence requires a link.
  • Editor’s eye: If the argument feels opinionated without evidence, ask for more references. If it is drowning in links without a clear contribution, advise the author to streamline.

Opinion Piece (750–1500 words):

  • Expectation: A strong viewpoint backed by facts.
  • Source practice: Sources are needed to establish factual grounding (e.g. statistics, opponent’s arguments, key events).
  • Balance: Not every rhetorical flourish needs a link, but core claims must be verifiable.
  • Editor’s eye: Ask: Can a critical reader verify the factual scaffolding behind the author’s opinion? If not, require more sourcing.

Explainer (500–1500 words):

  • Expectation: A comprehensive, balanced introduction to a topic.
  • Source practice: Explainers must draw from multiple perspectives (e.g., historical, institutional, legal, political, etc.). This should also reflect in the referencing.
  • Balance: More sources are expected here than in a news piece or opinion, but they should be integrated smoothly to avoid overwhelming the reader.
  • Editor’s eye: If the explainer feels like it’s based only on one article or Wikipedia, it’s insufficient. Encourage variety and balance across source types. The explainer format is intended to be similar to a high-quality encyclopedia entry.

3. Red Flags Across All Article Formats

  • Key facts without references.
  • Vague referencing (e.g. “Some experts say…” without attribution).
  • Over-reliance on a single source to carry the argument. This does not apply if the author analyses one source in-depth.
  • Chain referencing (e.g. citing a news article that cites another report, without linking to the original).
  • Broken or misleading links (editor must test-click). Such links need to be corrected or changed by the author
  • Plagiarism or patchwork sourcing (lifting text/ideas without attribution).
  • Sources that do not actually support the claim.
  • Academic citation styles (such as APA, Harvard, or MLA) are not permitted, but the Sources & Linking Policy follows the same underlying principle: every claim that is not the author’s own should be backed by a verifiable source through a hyperlink in the text.

4. Quality & Relevance of Sources

Editors should check that:

  • Original sources are prioritised (e.g. EU legislation, official statistics, institutional press releases, …).
  • Reputable secondary sources (academic articles, think tank reports, established newspapers or specialised media) are used for context or debate.
  • Linking: Sources must be hyperlinked (1–4 words) directly.
  • Balance: where debates exist, authors should show awareness of different perspectives, not only one-sided evidence.

Contacts

  • Email Address: [email protected]
  • WhatsApp: Message to the group or to Sofia Slonovska (+380 987420699)
  • Network: Direct message to Sofia Slonovska
  • In case of technical issues: Message to the group or to Nicolás Heck
  • In case of general technical issues, e.g., in the network or with your account: Message to the Help Desk on the network

Final Note

Your contribution as an analyst is essential to ensuring that European Relations can publish articles at the highest possible quality standard and with the greatest sense of responsibility.

We are delighted to collaborate with you on this mission, welcome you to our community, and look forward to working together!

© European Relations