ASPI Submission Guidelines: The Strategist and Special Reports

Key Takeaways

• ASPI publishes on two clocks. The Strategist turns commentary around in days; Special Reports take months of scoping, review, and design.
• Strategist editors screen for one contestable claim, a live policy hook, and plain English. A pitch that repeats an argument already on the site usually gets no reply.
• Special Reports reward original data and a named decision-maker audience, and they start with a scoping note rather than a finished draft.
• Disclose funding, affiliations, and any earlier publication of the same material. ASPI attaches author affiliations to published pieces, and readers check them.
• Match format to evidence. One strong argument belongs in a commentary piece; a dataset and a twelve-month question belong in a report.

1. Introduction

Officials, journalists, and analysts across Canberra and the wider Indo-Pacific quote ASPI research on defence budgets, critical technology, and Pacific security. Writers who want that readership often discover that the institute's two most visible outputs run on completely different schedules. The Strategist publishes commentary within days of acceptance. An ASPI Special Report can take a year from first conversation to launch.

That mismatch explains most failed submissions. A researcher sends a 40-page draft to a commentary editor working on a 24-hour news cycle. A policy analyst sends a 700-word opinion piece to a research program that funds fieldwork and external review. Neither gets a response, and the silence says little about the quality of either piece.

This guide covers how both tracks work, what editors screen for, how to pitch each format, and how ASPI compares with other outlets where defence and technology analysts publish. It draws on the structure of ASPI's public contributor guidance and on how its research programs operate. Word counts and deadlines change, so confirm the current numbers on ASPI's submission page the week you pitch.

2. Two tracks, two clocks

Conclusion: decide which ASPI product you are writing for before you write anything. The two formats answer different questions for different readers, and the evidence standard differs by roughly an order of magnitude.

The Strategist is ASPI's commentary platform. It carries short analysis and argument on defence, national security, cyber, technology policy, space, climate security, and the Indo-Pacific. Contributors include ASPI staff and outside authors: serving and former officials, academics, industry analysts, and military officers. The typical reader is a senior public servant, a ministerial adviser, a journalist, or a counterpart in another country skimming on a phone. Pieces run short, historically in the 600 to 900 word range, and they carry a single argument.

Special Reports are research products. They run from roughly twenty pages to eighty or more, with an executive summary, findings, recommendations, and a methodology section, and many rely on original data, interviews, or a survey. Several are commissioned by government departments or developed inside ASPI research centres such as the International Cyber Policy Centre. Launch usually involves media outreach, an event, and social distribution.

ASPI publishes shorter policy briefs and maintains data products, including its critical technology tracking work. If your material is a data update rather than a full study, ask the relevant program whether a brief or a dataset contribution fits better.

Practical advice: if your idea has a news hook and a sharp claim, The Strategist is the faster route. If it needs a method section and a year of data collection, write a scoping note and approach the research side.

3. Pitching and writing for The Strategist

Editors decide from two or three sentences, not from a draft they never requested. A usable pitch contains four things:

• The claim in one sentence, stated as an assertion a reader could disagree with.
• The evidence behind it: documents, data, or direct operational experience.
• The hook: which decision, report, budget, or deployment makes this urgent now.
• The author: current role and relevant background in one or two lines.

Submit it to the editorial contact listed on ASPI's contributor page, with a subject line that names the hook. If the piece is tied to a speech or a budget release, say so, because a piece pegged to a live news event loses its value within about 48 hours.

Once accepted, the writing follows house conventions. Open with the claim rather than background. Build two or three supporting moves, then close with what should change and who should change it. Link to sources instead of footnoting them. Spell out acronyms on first use, and drop service jargon that only insiders recognise. Avoid "we must act urgently" unless you can name the actor and the mechanism.

Disclosure matters. Name any organisation that funds your work and any advisory role connected to the topic. ASPI attaches an author line and a standard disclaimer that the views are the author's own, which protects the institute and, in practice, protects you.

Common reasons a piece gets declined: the argument appeared on the site within the past month; the piece attacks a party or person without evidence; it has no Australian or Indo-Pacific policy angle; it reads like a journal article with a literature review; or a version has already been published elsewhere.

Payment is worth settling early. Commentary platforms of this type often don't pay contributors, while commissioned research usually does. If payment is a condition of your writing, ask the editorial contact before you commit time.

4. Proposing an ASPI Special Report

Treat a Special Report as a research project with a review process attached. It is not an extended blog post, and the strongest proposals arrive as a one or two page scoping note covering:

• The question, in a single sentence.
• The decision-maker who would act on the answer.
• What is new relative to work already published by ASPI and elsewhere.
• Method and data sources, including any fieldwork, survey, or interview program.
• Timeline, staffing, and any funding requirement.
• How the launch would reach the intended reader.

Review takes two or three rounds as a rule. Internal readers from the relevant program comment first, then external reviewers where the topic warrants it, followed by editing, design, and fact-checking. Footnoting is expected, along with a method annex and a paragraph on limitations. Recommendations work best when they name an actor and a mechanism, for example "the Department of Defence should publish the sustainment schedule by June" rather than "governments should prioritise sustainment".

Commissioning shapes the calendar. Research centres plan publications a year ahead and often fund reports from a specific program. An unsolicited manuscript that arrives without a prior conversation rarely enters that plan, however good it is.

One caution. If your evidence base is eight interviews and a literature review, propose a brief or a Strategist piece instead. Overselling thin material as a Special Report costs you credibility with the program you will want to approach later.

5. Comparing outlets: where your expertise fits

Format and reader match your evidence more closely than prestige does. The table below sets out where ASIP-adjacent work commonly lands, what each outlet rewards, and where it falls short.

Two conventions apply across all of them. Editors expect original, unpublished work, so pitch one outlet at a time rather than simultaneously; if a version ran somewhere else, say so. And rights usually sit with the outlet for the first publication, which limits later republication.

6. FAQ

Q1. Can I pitch the same idea to The Strategist and another outlet at the same time?

Pitch sequentially. Simultaneous submissions across competing platforms damage your standing with both, and editors talk to each other. If an earlier version of the argument appeared somewhere else, mention it in the pitch and explain what the new piece adds.

Q2. Do I need a PhD or an institutional affiliation to write for ASPI?

No. Editors look for demonstrated expertise: government or military service, industry experience, published research, or a track record in the specific policy area. An affiliation helps readers place you, and an unexplained gap between your day job and your topic invites questions. Include a 60 to 100 word bio with your pitch.

Q3. How long does each route take?

The Strategist moves in days. A strong pitch that lands on a Monday can be published the same week when the news hook demands it, usually after one or two rounds of edits and a fact-check. A Special Report typically runs six to twelve months from scoping note to launch, and longer where fieldwork, ethics approval, or external funding is involved.

Q4. Does ASPI pay contributors?

It depends on the product. Commissioned research and Special Reports often sit inside funded programs with a contract attached, while short commentary generally does not carry a fee. Ask the editorial contact before committing time, and factor the answer into how much unpaid work you can take on.

7. Conclusion

ASPI's submission process sorts material by format. The Strategist takes arguments that need to reach readers this week. Special Reports take questions that need data, method, and a year of patience. Pick the format that matches your evidence, write the pitch before the draft, and disclose whatever a reader would want to know about who funds your work. A strong Strategist pitch names the document, the decision, and the author in under 120 words. A strong scoping note names the dataset, the method, and the reader who will act on the findings.