Most applicants approach this letter last, brief their referee least carefully, and submit a first draft without review. This guide explains what goes in it and how to brief someone who may never have written one before.

Why this is not a standard academic reference letter

Professors write academic reference letters regularly. They know what is expected: a description of the applicant's research, their professional qualities, their potential. Those letters work for jobs, grants and university admissions. They do not work for Global Talent endorsement, because a letter of personal recommendation for the peer review route has a different job to do.

The most common thing I see in peer review letters is language like "Dr X is a professional and dedicated researcher, diligent in their work and widely respected by their colleagues." Every word of that is positive. None of it moves an assessor. An accountant can be professional, dedicated and diligent. The letter is there to argue that this researcher is exceptional, not just competent.

Professors sometimes soften the language because it feels immodest to claim someone is "top 1% of the PhD graduates I have supervised" or "already developing at a pace I rarely see at this stage." Those claims feel uncomfortable to write. But they are exactly what the endorsing body is looking for. Without them, the letter is not doing the work it needs to do.

Who should write it

The requirements differ slightly depending on whether you are applying as Exceptional Promise or Exceptional Talent.

For Exceptional Promise, you need one letter of personal recommendation from someone legally residing in the UK at the time of application, eminent in your field (a professor or equivalent, not a lecturer or junior researcher), and with direct professional knowledge of your research. Not awareness of your reputation, actual familiarity with your work and what you have produced.

For Exceptional Talent, you need two mandatory letters. The first is the same letter of personal recommendation. The second is a separate letter containing an objective assessment of your reputation in the field, from a senior member of a reputable UK research organisation. The Royal Society guidance is specific: this person is assessing you in their capacity as an objective expert, not simply as someone who knows you. Both letters are verified by the endorsing body.

You can also include additional supporting letters in your evidence documents beyond the mandatory ones. I usually recommend it if you have other senior people who know your work well and can add something specific.

The letter is not an endorsement: what your referee needs to know

A lot of potential referees hesitate because they think writing a letter means endorsing someone for a visa. It does not. The endorsement comes entirely from the endorsing body after they have reviewed the whole application. The referee's letter is supporting evidence that informs that assessment. It is not a commitment, a guarantee or anything like a visa sponsorship.

Referees have no financial obligations, no legal liability, and no responsibility for the outcome. Their only obligation is to confirm, if contacted by the endorsing body, that they did write and sign the letter. Research endorsing bodies are increasingly doing exactly this: sending a brief email to verify the letter is genuine. Referees should know this may happen and respond promptly when it does, because a slow response can delay the decision.

Once you explain this clearly to a potential referee, the hesitation usually disappears. They are being asked to write a professional assessment of a researcher's work, which is something they already do in other contexts.

What the letter covers

The letter is typically two and a half to three pages. It is a detailed professional assessment, not a short warm endorsement. From the cases I work on, the sections that matter most are:

The research itself, in specific terms. Not just the area of research, but what is genuinely distinctive about it. What has the applicant found, developed or contributed that is original? Which publications, patents or grants reflect that? The referee going deep into the actual content of the research, what it showed, why it matters, what would not exist without this person's work, is far more useful than gestures at "important contributions to the field."

Why this researcher is exceptional, stated explicitly. The endorsing body is assessing whether the applicant shows exceptional originality, creativity and independence in research. The letter should make that case directly. "Top of those I have supervised," "career trajectory I rarely see at this stage," "research outputs unusual for someone at this point in their career" are the kinds of statements that carry weight. They feel immodest but they are the point.

The career trajectory, not just the current position. For Exceptional Promise especially, the endorsing body is looking for a steep upward arc, someone who is not yet at the top of the field but is getting there faster than the norm. The letter is a good place to show that: what has the applicant achieved, in what timeframe, and how does that compare to where you would expect someone at this stage to be?

Contribution to UK research and innovation. This section comes up in rejection proformas more than people expect. Vague statements like "she plans to contribute to UK pharmaceutical research" are noted as insufficient. The more specific the better: which research groups, which projects, what gaps in UK research this person's work would address. It also specifically needs to be research and scientific contribution, not plans to lecture or teach.

The personal qualities trap. I read a lot of letters that describe the applicant as hardworking, collaborative, well-regarded and dedicated. All of that is fine but none of it is what is being assessed. The endorsing body is evaluating the research career, not the person's character. The letter should be mostly about the research, not the person's soft skills.

Can the applicant draft the letter for the referee to sign?

Yes, and it is quite common. Many referees, particularly those unfamiliar with the endorsement process, are happy to review and sign a draft the applicant has prepared. The endorsing body knows this happens and has no issue with it. What matters is that the referee genuinely reads it, is comfortable with everything in it, and signs it as an accurate reflection of their professional view.

If you are drafting the letter, write what you know to be true about your own research and trajectory, then let your referee read, correct and sign it. The endorsing body contacts referees to verify the letter is genuine, not to catch out people who drafted their own. As long as the referee is real, has the credentials claimed, and will stand behind what is in the letter, you are fine.

How to brief a referee who is writing it themselves

If your referee is writing the letter independently, a clear briefing document saves a lot of back-and-forth. Send them a summary that includes:

I have seen cases where a professor received a full briefing, wrote a first draft, and then quietly removed everything I would have asked them to include because it felt like too much. A follow-up conversation about why that language matters, and that it is expected rather than unusual, is often worth having before the final version is signed.

Before you submit: letter checklist

Official guidance