Contact the journal

Ways to reach us

There is no switchboard here and no contact form that disappears into a void. The Logictran Tech Journal is written and edited by working engineers, and the inbox is read by the same people who write the articles. That means every message you send lands with someone who can actually do something useful with it — answer your question, follow up on your tip, or read your pitch with the attention it deserves. We keep the channels deliberately simple so you never have to guess where a message should go.

For anything general — a question about a guide, a piece of feedback, a thought you had while reading, or a tip you want to pass along — write to post@logictran.com. This is the front door, and if you are ever unsure which address to use, this is the safe choice. We would rather receive a message at the wrong address and route it internally than have you hesitate and not write at all. If you have read something on the site and a sentence stuck with you, prompted a disagreement, or sparked a follow-up question, that is exactly the kind of note we love to find waiting in the morning.

If you have a specific idea for an article — something you would like to write yourself, or a story you think we should cover — write to editor@logictran.com. Sending a pitch to the editorial address rather than the general one helps it move faster, because it lands directly in the queue we review when we are planning what to publish next. You do not need a polished draft or a perfect outline; you need a clear idea and a sentence or two about why it matters. The form on this page does the same job: pick a topic from the dropdown, write your message, and it reaches the same eyes. Use whichever feels more comfortable. The form exists for people who would rather not open an email client; the email addresses exist for people who want to attach a file, link to their work, or keep a written thread. Both are read the same way, by the same editors, with the same care.

Whatever route you choose, a little context goes a long way. Tell us which article you are responding to if there is one, paste the link, and copy the exact sentence if you can. The more precisely you point us at the thing you mean, the faster and more useful our reply will be — and the less time we spend writing back to ask which of the dozens of guides on the site you had in mind.

How to pitch an article

We genuinely want to hear from people who know a corner of software, the web, content systems, or accessibility better than we do. A good pitch is not a finished article and it is not a vague gesture at a subject. It is a short, specific argument for why a particular piece should exist, why it should exist on this journal, and why you are the right person to write or inform it. The best pitches we receive can be read in under a minute and still leave us nodding. If you are weighing whether your idea fits, the most reliable test is to read a few of our existing pieces — for example our complete guide to modern web development and design or our explainer on what a software solution actually is — and ask whether your idea sits comfortably beside them in tone and depth.

Before you send anything, it is worth reading our about page and editorial standards so your pitch speaks our language from the first line. Everything we publish is practical, fact-checked, and written to be useful years after it goes live, not just on the week it is published. A pitch that already understands that bar is halfway to a yes.

Here is a checklist of what a strong pitch includes. You do not need every item, but the more boxes you can tick, the easier it is for us to say yes quickly:

• A working title and a one-line summary. If you can describe the article in a single sentence, you understand it well enough to write it. If you cannot, the idea probably needs more time to settle before it becomes a pitch.
• The core argument or takeaway. What will a reader know, be able to do, or stop believing after they finish? We publish pieces that change how someone works on Monday morning, not pieces that merely describe a topic in the abstract.
• Why it matters now — or why it is durably true. Some stories are timely; most of ours are evergreen. Tell us which yours is. A guide that will still be accurate in three years is just as welcome as one tied to a current shift.
• Who it is for. A beginner trying to understand a concept and a senior engineer making an architecture decision need very different articles. Name your reader.
• What makes it credible. First-hand experience, a hard-won lesson from production, primary documentation, or measured results all count. We avoid pieces that simply restate what every other blog already says.
• A rough sense of structure. Three to five bullet points sketching the shape of the article tells us you have thought past the headline. It also makes our reply far more concrete.
• A link to your work, if you have it. A published article, a thoughtful README, a conference talk — anything that shows how you explain things. We care about clarity far more than credentials.

If your pitch leans on outside facts, point us at the primary sources you would cite. We lean on authoritative documentation rather than second-hand summaries, and a pitch that already references the right references stands out. For web and SEO topics we frequently check claims against Google Search Central documentation, and for anything touching markup, accessibility, or web standards we go to the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). Showing us you know where the authoritative answers live tells us a great deal about how you will write. If you are pitching in an area we already cover — accessibility, for instance — skim a piece like our explainer on why accessibility overlays cause problems first, so your idea adds to the conversation rather than repeating it.

Suggesting a topic or asking a question

Not every message has to be a pitch, and not every good idea comes from someone who wants to write the article themselves. Some of the most valuable notes we receive are simply a reader saying, "I went looking for a clear explanation of this and could not find one." That is a gift. A topic suggestion costs you a sentence and tells us where the gaps are between what people need to understand and what is actually written down well. If you have hit a wall trying to understand something in software, the web, content management, or accessibility, tell us — there is a good chance other readers have hit the same wall, and a good chance we can help.

When you suggest a topic, the most useful thing you can add is the context behind the question. What were you trying to do when the question came up? What did you already read that did not quite answer it? What is the specific confusion — a piece of terminology, a decision you cannot make, a process that nobody seems to describe end to end? That context shapes whether we answer you directly in an email or turn your question into a full article that helps everyone who searches for the same thing later. Many of our guides started life exactly this way. Our breakdown of the different types of CMS — WCMS, DAM and ECM explained grew out of readers conflating tools that do very different jobs, and our walkthrough of how to choose a software solution exists because people kept asking the same decision questions in slightly different words.

Questions are just as welcome as suggestions. If you have read one of our pieces and something did not click — a step that seemed to skip ahead, a term we assumed you knew, a recommendation you want to push back on — write and ask. We would much rather answer a direct question than have you leave the page still confused. If a question keeps coming up, we treat that as a signal that the original article was not clear enough, and we go back and fix it. Your confusion is not a nuisance; it is feedback that makes the journal better. You can ask about anything we have published, from the fundamentals in our web development fundamentals explainer to the more specialized territory of converting RTF documents to XML.

How we handle corrections

We get things wrong sometimes. Every publication does, and any publication that claims otherwise is either not paying attention or not being honest. What separates a trustworthy journal from an untrustworthy one is not the absence of errors — it is what happens after an error is found. Our policy is simple and we hold to it without exception: when you tell us about a mistake, we check it, and if you are right, we fix it and we say that we fixed it. We do not quietly edit the page and pretend the error was never there. A correction noted openly is worth more to a reader than a clean page that hides its own history. When a fix involves a technical detail, we re-check it against primary references such as MDN Web Docs before we update the article.

If you spot something wrong — a factual error, a broken or outdated link, a code sample that no longer runs, a recommendation that has aged badly, or even a typo that changes the meaning of a sentence — email post@logictran.com and point us at it as precisely as you can. The single most helpful thing you can include is the exact location: the page, the section heading, and ideally the sentence as it currently reads. If the error is factual, a link to a primary source that shows the correct version helps us verify quickly and act with confidence. We treat correction reports as a priority, because an error left standing does damage every day it stays up, and because readers who take the time to flag a mistake have done us a real favor.

When we make a correction, we are transparent about it in proportion to how much it matters. A fixed typo does not need a public note. A changed fact, a reversed recommendation, or a significant revision does, and we will mark it so that anyone who read the earlier version understands what changed and why. This is the same standard we describe on our editorial standards page, and it is not a formality — it is the whole point. The journal is only as useful as it is trustworthy, and trust is built on being visibly willing to be wrong in public. If you ever feel a correction we made did not go far enough, tell us that too. We would rather have the argument than leave you doubting the page.

What happens after you write to us

Here is what to expect once your message is sent, so there are no surprises and no wondering whether it vanished. Every message is read by a person, not filtered by a bot or parked in a ticketing queue that nobody checks. We usually reply within a couple of days. If your note is a quick question, you will often hear back faster than that. If it is a detailed pitch or a correction that needs us to dig into sources, it may take the full window or a little longer, because we would rather give you a considered answer than a fast brush-off.

What the reply looks like depends on what you sent. If you asked a question, we answer it as directly as we can, and sometimes we ask a question back to make sure we are solving the right problem. If you reported a correction, we tell you what we found and what we changed, and we link you to the updated page. If you suggested a topic, we tell you honestly whether it is something we plan to cover, something we have queued, or something outside our scope — and if it is the last of those, we will often point you toward where you might find a good answer instead. If you sent a pitch, we read it properly and respond with either interest and next steps, questions to sharpen the idea, or a clear and respectful no with a reason. We do not leave pitches hanging in silence, because we have been on the other side of that silence and it is the worst part of pitching anywhere.

A few honest caveats. We are a small, independent journal, not a help desk, so we cannot offer one-to-one technical support, debug your specific codebase, or answer at the volume a large organization could. We also cannot promise to publish every good idea — there are always more worthwhile topics than there are hours to write them well. And a no from us is rarely a verdict on the idea; far more often it is a question of fit, timing, or the simple arithmetic of a small team. None of that changes the basic promise: write to us with something real, and a real person will write back. If you want to get a feel for the kind of work your message might one day sit beside, the deeper end of the catalogue — pieces like our guide to integrating AI into your software stack or the developer's guide to AI in 2026 — is the clearest answer to what we are trying to build, one article and one reader at a time.

However you reach us — a tip, a pitch, a correction, or a question that has been nagging at you — know that there is a person on the other end who is glad you wrote. The journal exists for its readers, and the conversation in our inbox shapes what we publish next. While you wait for a reply, the best thing you can do is keep reading: dive into the latest articles, follow a thread from one topic to the next, and let what you find spark the next message you send us. That loop — read something, question it, tell us, and watch it grow into the next piece — is the whole point of an independent, free-to-read journal, and you are already part of it.