Writing emails that get answered

The two failure modes

Emails in international collaborations fail in two ways, and they need different fixes.

Not read: too long, no clear request, arrives among many others. Fix with structure.

Read but misunderstood: indirect phrasing, implied deadlines, assumed context. Fix with plainness.

Structure that gets read

1. Subject line states the action. "Ethics timeline — need your input by 20th" rather than "Project update".
2. First line says what you need. Not background first. If the reader stops after one line, they should know what is being asked.
3. Context after the request, kept short.
4. Numbered points if there is more than one item. Prose paragraphs containing three separate requests reliably produce one answer.
5. Explicit deadline with a date, and a reason for it.
6. One email, one topic. Two topics in one message means one gets lost.

Plainness beats politeness formulas

English hedging conventions carry meaning that does not survive translation. Consider:

• "It would be good to have this soon" — is this a request or a wish? Say: "Please send this by Friday 20th."
• "We might want to consider changing the protocol" — is this a decision? Say: "I propose we change the protocol as follows. Do you agree?"
• "I was wondering whether you had a chance to look at…" — Say: "Have you been able to review the draft? We need it to submit on the 30th."

Being direct is not being rude. Ambiguity that causes a missed deadline is far more damaging to a relationship than a plainly worded request.

Keep the courtesies — a greeting, a thank you — and make the substance unambiguous.

Making it easy to say no or to raise a problem

In many professional settings, direct refusal to an external partner is avoided. If you only ask "Is this fine?", you will get agreement that may not be real.

Better questions:

• "What would make this difficult on your side?"
• "Is this timeline realistic given your teaching schedule this semester?"
• "What do you need from us to make this work?"
• "If there is a problem with this approach, I would rather know now than later — what are your concerns?"

These give the recipient a legitimate way to raise an issue without refusing.

Confirming decisions

After any call or meeting, send a short summary: decisions made, who does what, by when. Ask for confirmation or correction. This does more to prevent misunderstanding than any other single habit, and it creates a record when memories differ later.

Practical points

• Write dates in full — "20 March 2026", not a numeric format that reads differently in different countries.
• State time zones for meetings, and confirm the local time on both sides.
• Avoid idiom and phrasal verbs where a plain word exists. "Postpone" is clearer than "push back".
• Avoid acronyms that are standard in your institution but not elsewhere.
• Copy the right people — but not everyone. Ask your counterpart who should be included on institutional matters.
• Attach rather than link where file sharing services may be blocked or slow.

When email is the wrong tool

For anything with genuine ambiguity, disagreement, or a decision to be made, a twenty-minute video call resolves what email can muddle for three weeks. Use email to prepare the call and to confirm what was decided, not to conduct the negotiation.

When you get no reply

Wait about a week, then send a short follow-up that repeats the request and the deadline — do not simply forward the old message. If a second follow-up goes unanswered, try a different contact or a call. Silence usually means workload or an unresolved internal issue, not disinterest.

Note: practices described here vary between countries, institutions and disciplines, and change over time. Check the current rules of the specific institution, funder or publisher you are dealing with.