How to Source and Work With Subject Matter Experts When You're Not the Expert Yourself

You've been handed an article on a topic you only half understand, and you know it needs a real expert's voice to be worth reading. This guide walks you through eight steps for finding the right person, getting them to say yes, interviewing them, and turning the conversation into material you can check and cite. By the end you'll have a repeatable way to produce subject matter expert content even when you start from zero knowledge.

The short version is this. Work out exactly what you need explained, find people whose public work covers that point, check them before you reach out, and ask for a specific conversation. Then interview them with open questions, and verify what they say before it goes into the article.

This guide is about outside experts only. It doesn't cover using your founder's own experience, setting up an internal contributor program, or interviewing customers for case studies.

Step 1: Define the exact expertise gap

Before you search for anyone, write down what you need help with. Most failed expert requests start with "I need an expert on X," and X is almost always too broad to act on.

Look at your outline and mark the statements you can't confidently explain yourself. Those are the places where an expert's interpretation, a practitioner's current view, or a plain-language explanation of technical terms will help the reader. Then write a short source brief with five things in it:

• The article topic and who it's for.
• The question or claim that needs expert input.
• The kind of expertise that fits, such as original research, hands-on professional work, or authority over a defined subject area.
• What a useful answer would look like: an explanation, a piece of evidence, an example, a caveat, or a practical takeaway.
• What the interview will not be asked to settle. An expert's opinion on its own isn't proof of a disputed fact.

A quick test is to finish this sentence: "I need someone who can explain ___, based on ___, so the reader can understand ___." If the blanks come out vague, narrow the assignment before you contact anyone.

If you plan your content from data, this is also a good place to look at where expert input would matter most. DeepSmith's Opportunity Agents return content ideas with the data point that justifies each one, so you can see which topics the evidence says are worth the effort of an interview before you spend time finding someone.

You're done when you have one or more clear questions and can say why a particular kind of expert fits.

Common mistake: Starting with an impressive title or a quote you'd like to have, then trying to fit that person to the article. Start with the knowledge gap and let it tell you who to look for.

Step 2: Search where expertise is visible

Use more than one route to find people. The goal is to find people connected to the work itself, and not only the people who already show up in the media a lot. If you want to source SMEs for articles on a topic that's new to you, these six routes cover most of what you'll need.

1. Find the original research. Search scholarly databases and Google Scholar for recent papers, reviews, and reports on your exact topic. Follow the author names back to their current institutional pages. The CUNY journalism school's finding experts guide also points to research repositories and academic expert databases as places to start.
2. Check universities and research centers. Look for faculty-by-topic pages, subject directories, research center pages, and media expert hubs. Contact the person through the contact details the institution publishes.
3. Search the professional field. Specialist associations, conference programs, trade publication bylines, and professional directories show who actually does the work, and what part of it they know best.
4. Use expert and diversity directories to widen the list. The CUNY guide lists several, including NPR's Diverse Source Directory, Women's Media Center SheSource, Diverse Sources, and 500 Women Scientists. They're useful for finding people you'd otherwise miss, but a listing is a lead and not a credential.
5. Use professional networks as a search tool. LinkedIn's advanced people search lets you filter by subject terms, role, and employer.
6. Look at prior coverage. Search your topic along with words like researcher, report author, specialist, or professor, and see who has written or spoken about your exact question. Then look at the underlying work, not just how often the name appears.

Keep a short list as you go. For each candidate, note the name, current role, the work that's relevant, how to contact them, and why they match your brief. Try to have more than one good option so the whole article doesn't hang on one person's calendar.

You're done when your shortlist is made up of people with visible work on your specific question, not just a list of well-known names.

Pitfall: A search result, directory listing, or social bio is a place to start. It doesn't confirm that the person is an expert on your question.

Step 3: Vet expertise, relevance, and interests

Check every candidate before you reach out. A good expert has a clear connection to the specific question and can explain how they know what they know.

Expertise isn't only about degrees. It can come from study, education, or experience. A credential can help you find a lead, but it doesn't prove the person is the right source for the particular claim in your article. Someone can know a broad field very well and still not be the right voice on one technique, one time period, or one group of people.

Here's a checklist you can work through for each name:

• Topic fit. Does their research, practice, or role cover the exact subtopic? Which part of the article can they speak to, and which part is outside their lane?
• Evidence of work. Have they written relevant work, produced research, or been named as an authority by several reputable sources? Can you read the work yourself?
• Current relevance. Is their knowledge recent enough for a topic that changes? Check the dates on publications, job roles, rules, and public statements.
• Independent confirmation. Confirm their role and claims through the institution, original publications, or reputable coverage. A bio they wrote about themselves shouldn't be the only proof.
• Track record. Do a general web and news search on the person. The CUNY guide recommends this as due diligence, and it can surface past inaccuracies or controversies you'd want to know about.
• Interests and affiliations. Note who employs, funds, or represents them, and who might benefit from the position they take. A financial or organizational interest doesn't automatically rule someone out, but it changes how you attribute and corroborate what they say.
• Range of voices. Think about whether your pool reflects different disciplines, regions, and perspectives. Directories can help, though fit with the topic still comes first.

A simple three-column note works well for the record: evidence of expertise, limits or interests to disclose, and claims that need independent verification.

If you want to see how experts and credentials can strengthen a page for AI engines, the guide on using expert reviewers and credentials to earn AI citations goes into that side of it.

You're done when you can say why the expert fits, what they can't speak to, and any interest or limitation the reader should know about.

Step 4: Make a specific, easy-to-answer request

An expert is more likely to say yes when they can see right away what you're asking, why you picked them, and what it will take. Poynter's media request instructions ask for the topic, available dates and times, and direct contact information, which is a good minimum to copy for your own outreach.

Your message should cover:

• Who you are and which publication or company you write for.
• The article topic, the reader, and the specific question you hope they can help with.
• Why their work in particular is relevant. Skip generic flattery and name the paper, report, or role that led you to them.
• What you're asking for: a call, a video interview, or written answers, along with a realistic length and a few scheduling options.
• How their contribution will be used and credited, including their name, role, and organization.
• Whether you plan to record, and a request for their agreement before you do.
• Any commercial or brand relationship, payment, or other condition that could affect how they read the request.

Here's a template to adapt.

Subject: Interview request about [specific topic] for [article/publication]

Hello [name],

I'm [name] with [publication/company]. I'm preparing an article for [audience] about [specific topic]. I'm reaching out because your work on [specific publication, research, or relevant experience] connects directly to the question of [focused question].

Would you be available for a [duration] [call/video interview] or [alternative] by [date]? I'm especially hoping to understand [two or three broad areas]. We expect to attribute comments to you as [name, role, organization]. [State whether the conversation will be recorded and any agreed terms.] Please let me know if these areas fit your expertise or if there's a better person to contact.

Thank you, [Name and direct contact information]

The duration and deadline in the template are placeholders. Set them honestly for the assignment, because there's no research-backed norm for either. If you don't hear back, a short, polite follow-up and then moving on to the next name on your list is a sensible routine, though nothing guarantees a reply.

You're done when the expert can tell why you contacted them, what you need, how the material will be used, and what to do next.

Common mistake: Sending a vague request for "a quick quote" with no topic, no use, no deadline, and no reason this person was chosen. It's easy to ignore and hard to say yes to.

Step 5: Prepare the interview and agree on the ground rules

Good expert interviews content comes from preparation on both sides. Read up on the subject and on the person before the call. Be clear about what role the expert will play and which question the article is trying to answer. Look at their relevant work, their current affiliation, and any technical terms you want them to explain.

Then build a short question map tied to the gaps in your brief. It should be a list of areas you want to cover, and not a rigid script.

Before the conversation, tell the expert who will interview them, what the piece is for, the broad subject, and the format. Confirm how you'll attribute them and whether the call will be recorded. If you plan to use terms like on the record, off the record, or background, explain what you mean in plain language first, because the two of you may not understand them the same way. Follow any recording laws and organizational policies that apply to you.

Your questions should help you get at six things:

• The key concept, explained in plain language.
• How or why the process works.
• A concrete example or case that makes it easy to picture.
• The evidence or original sources behind the important claims.
• The limits, exceptions, and what could change the answer.
• What a non-specialist is most likely to misunderstand.

The Open Notebook has a useful piece on crafting effective interview questions. It suggests five adaptable prompts: what's happening, how we got here, why it matters, what comes next, and what the central issue is. Its wider advice is to keep questions simple, start with an important one, explain central concepts even when you think you already understand them, and use follow-ups to get specific examples. BBC training material on preparing for an interview makes a similar point about deciding why you need this person and adapting to how the conversation goes.

You're done when every planned question connects to something you need for the article, and the expert understands the purpose and the basic terms of the conversation.

Pitfall: Sending a full script and then reading it word for word. A short list of topic areas can help the expert get ready, but you want to stay free to follow a useful answer. The Associated Press, for example, says in its statement of news values and principles that it doesn't provide full question lists in advance. That's one newsroom's standard and not a rule for every branded content team, so decide what to share based on your own editorial policy.

Step 6: Ask, listen, and follow up for detail

Ask one question at a time. Open questions that invite an explanation work better than yes-or-no questions, leading questions, or questions that pack in several requests. Give the expert time to think, and try not to fill every pause with your next prompt.

These follow-ups are worth keeping on a card next to you:

• "Can you give me a specific example?"
• "How do you know that?"
• "What does that term mean in this context?"
• "What evidence or source should I read to check this?"
• "What are the limits or exceptions?"
• "What would make this explanation wrong or incomplete?"
• "Is there more I should understand?"

Listen for the terms the expert uses and follow those threads. If a phrase is unclear, say it back and ask what it means. Every so often, summarize what you understood and ask, "Did I get that right?" That checks your own understanding and gives them a chance to correct you. Poynter's advice on listening rather than interviewing is a good reminder of this: listen to learn, ask open follow-ups, and don't treat the conversation like a race through a checklist.

If you record, get agreement first and keep written notes as a backup. Write down the date, who took part, their roles, the agreed attribution, the important claims, and any documents they mention. When the expert quotes a statistic, ask what it measures, the time period, the group it covers, how it was gathered, and where it came from originally.

Pro tip: Silence helps. Ask a clear question, let the expert finish the whole answer, and then follow up on one of their own key phrases with a neutral question. That's usually where the useful detail is, and it keeps you from supplying the conclusion you were hoping to hear.

You're done when your notes hold specific explanations, examples or evidence, limits, and follow-up items, and not just general opinions.

Pitfall: Collecting polished but generic lines like "this is important" without asking why, how, for whom, or on what evidence. They won't hold up as expert quotes for articles.

Step 7: Capture material you can attribute accurately

When you turn expert interviews content into an article, keep the surrounding context for every statement you might use, along with enough detail to attribute it correctly. Write down the expert's full name, current title, organization, the expertise that matters for the claim, and any qualification or interest that affects how it should be read. Confirm the spelling and the role before you publish.

In your notes, sort what you gathered into three kinds of material:

1. Direct quotation. The expert's exact words, checked against the recording or your notes from the time.
2. Paraphrase. Your accurate summary of their explanation, clearly attributed to them.
3. Verifiable claim. A statement that needs confirmation from an original study, data source, document, regulation, or other independent evidence.

Be careful with quotes. The AP's published principles say a quote shouldn't be taken out of context or changed, even to fix grammar. If a quote is unclear, paraphrase only when you can convey the meaning faithfully, and leave it out if the meaning is still murky. You don't have to be a newsroom to hold yourself to that standard. Use a quote when it adds a distinct explanation or a memorable phrase, and not just because it sounds authoritative.

When the interview points to research, data, a technical definition, or a rule that's changing, ask the expert where to find the source material. If the article leans on a document and not on the interview, name that document as the origin of the information. The guide on adding statistics, data, and quotes that AI engines cite covers the writing side.

You're done when every quote has context and confirmed attribution, and every factual claim that matters has a path to independent verification.

Step 8: Verify, follow up, and hand the evidence to production

After the conversation, check names, roles, quotations, numbers, dates, and technical claims against your recording, your notes, and the source materials. Verify the important claims on your own. If the expert's account doesn't match another source or the underlying evidence, look into the difference and don't just pick the answer that sounded more confident. If a key point is still unclear, send a short, focused follow-up.

Expert quotes for articles are valuable, but a quote is not proof. The expert can explain a claim, but the article still needs the claim checked against primary materials. If you want a fuller routine for that, the guide on fact-checking an AI draft for hallucinations and fabricated citations gives you a process that works on any draft, not only AI ones.

Be careful about editorial control. Don't promise a source approval of the finished article unless that's an explicit, approved policy. The AP's rule doesn't let interview subjects approve its text or images before publication. For branded content, your own publishing policy and anything you promised the source decide what happens. If your policy allows a source to check a specific quote or technical detail, define that scope up front so it doesn't turn into blanket approval of the whole piece.

Then close the loop. Store the interview notes, original sources, confirmed attribution, disclosed interests, and open questions together with the article brief. That gives the writer and the reviewer the evidence they need.

Once the expert material is checked, the draft can go into production. This is where DeepSmith's Content Studio fits in, as the stage after you've done the sourcing and checking. The Writer produces articles that are researched, linked, and grounded in your brand context from Deep IQ, so the expert material you've verified lands in a piece that already sounds like you. DeepSmith doesn't find, vet, or interview experts for you, and the checking stays with you.

For the review side of that handoff, adding human review and QA gates to an AI content pipeline shows where an editor's sign-off belongs.

You're done when the draft has verified claims, accurate quotations or paraphrases, clear attribution, and a record of anything still unresolved.

Pitfall: Sending the whole draft to the expert for approval as a shortcut to fact-checking. A source can clarify their own words or point you to evidence, but you remain responsible for the accuracy and framing of the article.

What to do next

Pick one article already on your list, and write the source brief from Step 1 for it today. Strong subject matter expert content starts with a clear brief, and that part is fully in your hands.

It's also worth being realistic about what an expert quote does for you. None of the sources we reviewed show a guaranteed ranking, traffic, or AI citation result from adding one. If you need to source SMEs for articles regularly, keep the shortlists and notes from each project, since the same people are often useful again. What an expert does reliably is make the piece clearer, better grounded, and easier for a reader to trust, and that's a good enough reason to do it.

When the interview is done and the facts are checked, you can start a free trial of DeepSmith and take the material through to a publish-ready article.

If you want to build more of the credibility signals around the piece, the guide on adding original insight to an AI draft so it reads like real expertise is a natural next read, and E-E-A-T for AI search explains how answer engines weigh trust and authority.