Institute for Security and Development Policy (ISDP) Submission Guidelines

Key takeaways

• ISDP publishes policy briefs, working papers, and longer research papers on security and development questions in Asia, Eurasia, and Europe, with editorial decisions made inside its regional programs rather than through a single central desk.
• Format fit decides more outcomes than topic choice: a 900-word commentary and a 50-page paper travel through different review paths and reach different readers.
• Manuscripts carrying three to five recommendations aimed at named actors clear editorial review more often than descriptive country updates.
• Turnaround ranges from a few weeks for a short brief to several months for a longer paper or edited volume, so plan around your policy deadline.
• Program pages list their own length, citation, and submission requirements, and those specifications change between series.

1. Introduction

Policy institutes sit between academic research and government decision-making, and authors who want officials to read their work often approach think tanks before journals. The Institute for Security and Development Policy (ISDP) in Stockholm is one of the smaller European institutions in that space with a steady publication output. It runs programs on China, Korea, South Asia, Myanmar, and the wider Silk Road region, and its output reaches foreign ministries, embassies, and defense agencies.

The problem for a first-time contributor is that ISDP submissions do not follow one template. Individual programs manage their own series, and the guidance that applies to a two-page commentary does not apply to a Silk Road Paper. Authors either send a manuscript that misses the format or spend weeks writing something the editors cannot place.

This article covers what ISDP publishes, how a submission should be structured, how review usually runs, and how ISDP compares with other outlets that accept policy writing. It is written for researchers, PhD candidates, analysts, and practitioners who have something to say about security and development and need to know where it fits.

2. What ISDP publishes and who reads it

ISDP is an independent research institute founded in Stockholm in 2007. Its work sits where security policy and development questions meet, and its regional coverage leans toward Asia and Eurasia. The programs generating most published output include the Stockholm China Center, the Korea Center, the South Asia Program, the Silk Road Studies Program, and research on Myanmar and Southeast Asia.

Formats differ in length and purpose. The table below reflects what these formats generally run across ISDP's series and comparable institutes; confirm the current specification for the series you are targeting.

Readers include Swedish and European officials, diplomats posted in Asia, defense analysts, journalists, and academics following the region. They read for the argument and the recommendations, and they skip literature reviews.

Choose the program before the format. A paper on Chinese export controls on rare earths belongs with the China Center. Fieldwork on border trade in northern Myanmar belongs with the Myanmar program. A general inbox delays either piece, because an editor has to forward it internally before anyone assesses the content.

3. How to structure a submission that survives editorial review

ISDP editors weigh policy usefulness first, evidence quality second, and methodological novelty third. A well-argued brief with three concrete recommendations beats a longer manuscript with none.

A structure that works for a brief or working paper:

1. Title. Under about twelve words, descriptive, without academic colon phrasing.
2. Executive summary. 100-150 words covering the problem, the finding, and what should be done.
3. Context. Two or three paragraphs. Assume the reader knows the region but not this specific file.
4. Analysis. The evidence you gathered: interviews, trade data, legislative text, budget documents, satellite imagery. Name sources in endnotes.
5. Recommendations. Three to five items, each naming the actor responsible (the EEAS, Sweden's Ministry for Foreign Affairs, a named national agency) and a feasible action.
6. Endnotes. Consistent endnote or footnote style, with links to primary documents where they exist.

Details that repeatedly affect the outcome:

• "Increase cooperation" and "enhance dialogue" tell an editor nothing. "The EU should condition renewal of the critical raw materials memorandum on joint verification of Chinese processing capacity" gives a reader something to accept or reject.
• Hedging weakens a policy paper. Write "the data show," or state what the uncertainty is.
• Cite recent ISDP output on the same question. Editors notice authors who know the series they are pitching to.
• Keep spelling consistent. ISDP's house style leans British.

A scenario: an analyst returns from six months of fieldwork on Kazakhstan's uranium transport routes with a draft that reads as a chronology of meetings and rail statistics. Rebuilding it around one decision (whether European utilities should diversify supply before 2030) and four options for doing so turns the same material into a publishable brief.

One boundary condition matters. ISDP runs editorial review with input from program staff, not open peer review in the journal sense. Methodological novelty counts for less than it would at a scholarly journal, and a literature review belongs in a footnote, if anywhere.

4. How the review process runs and why pieces get declined

The sequence for an accepted pitch usually looks like this:

1. Query. A short email to the relevant program with a 150-250 word pitch: the question, the argument, the evidence base, and the proposed format.
2. Response. A program editor replies with interest, a request for a full draft, or a decline. Expect one to three weeks.
3. Draft. Submit the manuscript in Word with a short author bio, and flag any funding or institutional affiliation that should be disclosed.
4. Internal review. One or two staff or affiliated experts read it. Longer papers may go to an external reader.
5. Revision. Editors return comments on structure, tone, and recommendations. Two rounds is common.
6. Copyedit, layout, publication. The piece appears on the ISDP website and goes out through its mailing lists.

A commentary that moves quickly can be evaluated within days. A policy brief takes two to four weeks. A working paper runs two to four months once revisions are counted.

Reasons submissions get declined:

• The piece describes a situation without arguing for a course of action.
• Recommendations address "the international community" instead of an actor that can decide something.
• The draft runs far over the target length, with the argument buried in section four.
• ISDP published something similar in the past two quarters and the new draft does not engage with it.
• The framing treats a contested conclusion as settled, which invites an argument the editors would rather not host.
• The text appeared elsewhere, including a personal blog or a university working paper series, without disclosure.

Two cautions. Pitch one program at a time; parallel pitches to the China Center and the Silk Road Studies Program on the same manuscript force an internal conversation nobody wants. If your funding comes from a government or a company with a stake in the topic, disclose it in the pitch instead of after acceptance.

5. Key comparison: how ISDP fits among policy outlets

The table below compares ISDP with three other routes for policy writing. The right choice depends on your timeline, your topic, and what you need the publication to do for your career.

A practical rule: if the question will still matter in eighteen months, a journal or a working paper serves you better. If a decision is being made this quarter, a brief or commentary reaches the people involved in time.

6. FAQ

Q1. Does ISDP accept submissions from researchers with no prior connection to the institute?

Yes. Programs publish work from external authors, and many contributors approach ISDP through a pitch rather than an existing relationship. The odds improve when the pitch shows familiarity with the program's recent output and names the series being targeted. Cold submissions on topics outside a program's remit rarely move forward.

Q2. What length should a policy brief follow, and which citation style?

Briefs generally run 1,500 to 3,000 words. Longer papers reach 12,000 words, and book-length Silk Road Papers run 30 to 60 pages. Citation practice is endnote-based and consistent, closer to Chicago than to APA. Confirm the current specification for the series you are pitching, because program pages list their own requirements and they change.

Q3. Can I submit a piece that has already been published elsewhere?

Most institutes want unpublished material with a period of exclusivity, and ISDP follows that pattern. A version that appeared on a personal blog, in a university working paper series, or in another language still counts as prior publication at many institutes. Disclose it in the pitch and let the editor decide. Concealing it damages the relationship more than the disclosure does.

Q4. How long does review take?

A commentary can be evaluated within days, a policy brief in two to four weeks, and a working paper in two to four months once revisions are counted. If you have a hard deadline tied to a policy event, say so in the pitch. Editors can sometimes compress a schedule, and they cannot if they learn about the deadline after review has started.

7. Conclusion

ISDP suits authors who work on Asia and Eurasia and can turn evidence into recommendations a named official could act on. The submission resembles a professional pitch more than an academic one: short query, clear argument, defined format, willingness to revise. Sort your manuscript by program and series before you write, confirm the current length and citation requirements on the program page, and treat the recommendations section as the part of the paper most likely to decide its fate. Authors whose topic falls outside ISDP's regional remit, or whose timeline is measured in days, will find a better fit elsewhere, and that judgment is worth making before a rejection rather than after.