Normative bioethics writing can be deceptively hard; what feels like a sharp argument to you might read as unclear, under-motivated, or too abstract to reviewers. As both an author and an editor, I’ve seen hundreds of manuscripts succeed—and many stumble. In this piece, based on my panel presentation at ASBH 2025, I share the most common pitfalls and the strategies that consistently make a normative paper compelling, coherent, and publication-ready.
What Normative Papers Do
Normative bioethics papers don’t just describe the world—they ask what ought to be done. They use moral reasoning, conceptual analysis, and argumentation to clarify or challenge ethical positions.
They can take many shapes– applying philosophical principles to real-world dilemmas (like nudging in clinical care), refining a key concept (e.g., autonomy, undue influence, moral distress, vulnerability), or developing new frameworks (allocation of scarce resources). The strongest papers are grounded in lived ethical problems and rich in analytic rigor.
Start with the “So What?”
A great paper begins with a live ethical tension. Lead with a problem that matters: something clinicians debate, policymakers struggle with, or philosophers haven’t resolved.
Avoid the “gap in the literature” opening. Instead, ask: Why does this matter right now? Frame the question that keeps you—or your colleagues—up at night.
Show You Know the Debate
Readers and reviewers want to see that you know the landscape and the relevant literature. Map out the main camps, cite both classic and recent work, and clarify exactly what you’re adding.
Your contribution might refine, challenge, or connect existing arguments—but make sure it’s unmistakably clear how your paper moves the conversation forward.
Make the Argument Easy to Follow
Normative work is argumentation. Be explicit: state your claim, offer your reasons, and anticipate objections.
Use helpful section headings and signposts—“I will argue that…,” “An objection might be…,” “In reply…”—so readers never get lost. Good structure doesn’t just please reviewers; it makes your reasoning persuasive.
End with Real-World Impact
Always close by answering “So what?” again. Show how your argument connects back to clinical practice, policy, or patient care. Even theoretical pieces benefit from a clear sense of why the question matters beyond philosophy circles.
Avoid These Common Pitfalls
- A meandering essay without a clear thesis
- Abstractions that lose sight of the applied context
- Missing key literature (especially from likely reviewers!)
- Weak structure or no signposting
- Defensive tone in revisions
How to Respond to Reviewers
Be gracious, organized, and clear. In your response letter:
- Start by thanking the reviewers.
- Address each comment in a numbered list or table.
- If you disagree, explain why—reasoned, never reactive.
Editors and reviewers appreciate authors who make their jobs easy and respond thoughtfully.
Match the Journal
Fit matters a lot.
- AJOB, JME, and Bioethics publish general normative and conceptual work.
- AJOB Neuroscience, AJOB Empirical Bioethics, and Ethics & Human Research lean more specialized.
Read recent issues for tone and trends. This is key—take the time to do this. Check word limits, fees, and what topics feel oversaturated before submitting. For example, if a journal has just published two articles on a topic in their past several issues, they may not be looking for more on that topic now.
Final Takeaways
Clarity, structure, argument, and relevance—these are the pillars of a winning normative paper. Start with a pressing ethical question, build a transparent argument, anticipate potential pushback, and demonstrate why your conclusion matters.
Do your journal homework. Engage deeply with the literature. And always write for the reader you most want to persuade.
Good luck!
Jennifer Blumenthal-Barby, PhD, MA is the Cullen Professor of Medical Ethics at Baylor College of Medicine, an Associate Editor at The American Journal of Bioethics, an Editorial Board Member at Journal of Medical Ethics & JME Practical Bioethics, and an Editorial Board Member at Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.