Institute for Security Studies (ISS Africa) Submission Guidelines

Key takeaways

• The ISS publishes through several channels: ISS Today commentary, policy briefs, regional and thematic research reports, the Peace and Security Council Report, and the peer-reviewed journal African Security Review. Each channel has its own editor and review chain.
• Most accepted ISS Africa submissions begin as a short pitch. Editors commission against a plan before a full draft exists, which means a strong two-paragraph email can save weeks of wasted writing.
• ISS readers work in the African Union, regional economic communities, national ministries, donor agencies and newsrooms. Assume ten minutes of their attention.
• Length limits, citation style, licensing and exclusivity terms differ by series. Confirm them with the commissioning editor, because templates that circulate online go stale as programmes open and close.
• Researchers based outside Africa do publish with the ISS, and Africa-based evidence and co-authorship carry weight during review.

1. Introduction

The Institute for Security Studies has been publishing on African peace and security since the early 1990s, with offices in Pretoria, Cape Town, Nairobi, Addis Ababa and Dakar. Its daily commentary, policy briefs and research reports reach African Union officials, diplomats, donor agencies and journalists. For analysts sitting on field data, evaluation findings or a sharp policy argument, that readership is the appeal.

The obstacle is that ISS Africa submissions do not run through one door. There is no single manuscript portal with one word limit and one style guide. A 900-word opinion piece and a 40-page research report enter through different editors, sit in different review processes, and carry different rights terms. Guidance pages shift as donor-funded programmes start and finish, so advice copied from an old blog post can be wrong within a year.

This article explains how the main ISS formats differ, what a workable pitch contains, how review and publication actually run, and how the ISS compares with other policy outlets so you can judge where a given piece belongs before you invest months in it.

2. What the ISS publishes, and who reads it

Every ISS output is written for a reader with a decision to make. That reader may be an AU desk officer drafting a communiqué, a national police planner, a donor programme manager or a journalist filling a deadline slot. None of them will read a literature review.

The publication types break down roughly as follows:

• ISS Today. Short commentary published regularly, usually built around one argument tied to a current event or decision. Written in plain prose with inline links rather than footnotes.
• Policy briefs. Mid-length analysis that runs to a few thousand words. These carry a defined policy problem, the evidence, and recommendations addressed to named actors.
• Regional and thematic reports. Longer research outputs, frequently 20 to 40 pages or more, often produced within a funded programme on topics such as organised crime, peacekeeping, migration or climate-related security risk. Examples include the regional report series and the ENACT work on illicit economies.
• Peace and Security Council Report. Structured reporting and analysis of AU Peace and Security Council sessions, produced for diplomats and member-state officials who follow those meetings closely.
• African Security Review. A peer-reviewed journal published with Taylor & Francis, aimed at researchers who need a citable academic record.

For practical purposes, the split matters in three ways. First, commentary rewards timeliness and a clear position; reports reward original evidence and methodological care. Second, the shorter formats are far more open to unsolicited contributors than the longer commissioned research. Third, the reader's attention span shrinks as the format shortens, so the structure of a policy brief cannot be copied into an ISS Today piece.

A researcher with two years of fieldwork in the Sahel often tries to compress the whole study into a commentary. The result reads as a summary with no argument. The better route is to extract one finding that changes a decision, pitch that as commentary, and keep the full study for a report or journal article.

3. Choosing the right ISS Africa series

Format choice comes before writing, and it is the step most contributors skip. Sending a 6,000-word manuscript to a commentary editor guarantees a slow rejection, and the same content trimmed to the right length can be accepted.

Length limits, referencing conventions and template files change as series are redesigned. Ask the editor for the current specification for your target series before you draft, and read the three most recent pieces in it. The register, citation habits and recommendation style in those pieces tell you more than any generic guide.

One boundary condition worth knowing: some ISS research programmes commission work through calls for proposals tied to a funded workplan, and those calls set the topic, budget and deadline. If no call is open for your subject, the open routes are commentary, policy briefs and, separately, the peer-reviewed journal.

4. From pitch to publication: how an ISS Africa submission moves

Editors at policy institutes commission against plans, so a pitch usually decides the outcome. A usable pitch runs 150 to 250 words and contains the following:

1. The finding, stated in the first two sentences.
2. Why it matters now, tied to a decision, negotiation, election, report release or budget cycle.
3. The evidence behind it: interviews, datasets, field access, document review, and how the material was verified.
4. What is new compared with what the ISS and others have already published.
5. The series you are targeting, proposed length and a delivery date you can meet.
6. A short author note covering affiliation, relevant publications, funding sources for the underlying research, and whether any part of the work has appeared elsewhere.

Once a piece is commissioned, the path typically runs through these stages: first draft, editor review with written comments, revision, external peer review for research reports and journal articles, fact-checking, copy-editing, layout, author sign-off on proofs, then publication and distribution through ISS newsletters and social channels.

Timelines follow the format. Commentary can move from accepted pitch to publication in days. Policy briefs usually take weeks. Reports and journal articles take months, and peer review adds a further cycle of revisions that can push a project past a funding deadline.

Two practical points save trouble. Most ISS series want original, unpublished work, so ask before submitting a piece that already sits on your institutional blog or was published in another language. And expect editorial cuts. ISS editors shorten drafts to fit the format, tighten recommendations, and adjust headlines. Authors who treat the first edit as a negotiation rather than an insult end up published faster.

5. How ISS Africa compares with other policy outlets

Matching a piece to the right outlet matters as much as writing it well. The table below summarises how several options differ in reach, review intensity and fit.

Two considerations cut across the table. Regional and topical fit decides whether an editor can place your piece with the right programme, and language decides how far it travels. ISS output is largely English, with some French material produced for West and Central African audiences; if your evidence base sits in Portuguese or Arabic sources, say so in the pitch and explain how you handled translation and verification.

6. FAQ

Q1. Does the ISS accept unsolicited submissions?

Yes, for several formats, and mostly through a pitch rather than a full manuscript. Commentary and policy briefs are the most accessible routes for outside contributors. Longer research reports are often commissioned inside funded programmes or through open calls for proposals, which set their own topics and deadlines. Check the current calls published on the ISS website, and contact the editor for the series that fits your topic before writing.

Q2. How long should an ISS Today piece be?

ISS Today commentary is short-form, generally well under 1,000 words, and the editor sets the final limit. A piece that tries to cover a whole research project will be cut or declined. Pick one argument, support it with the minimum evidence needed, and keep the language plain enough for a reader who is not a specialist in your field.

Q3. Can I submit something that has already appeared on my university blog?

Most ISS series expect original work that has not been published elsewhere, and simultaneous submission to two outlets creates problems if both accept. Disclose any earlier posting in the pitch and let the editor decide. A short institutional summary of a report sometimes qualifies as acceptable prior dissemination, but this varies by series and should be confirmed in writing.

Q4. Does the ISS pay contributors, and who holds the rights?

Terms vary by series and programme. Funded research contracts sometimes include fees, while short commentary often does not. Rights arrangements differ too, and some outputs are released under an open licence that permits republication with attribution. Ask the commissioning editor for the fee position and the licensing terms before you sign anything, and keep a copy of the agreed terms.

7. Conclusion

ISS Africa submissions reward preparation at the pitch stage more than polish at the manuscript stage. Identify the series first, read its three most recent pieces, then write a short pitch that leads with the finding, names the evidence, and states why the argument matters this quarter. Confirm length, citation style, exclusivity and rights with the editor before drafting, and budget time for two rounds of revision on anything longer than commentary.

The fit between evidence and format decides most outcomes. Field data and comparative analysis belong in a report or a peer-reviewed article. A single finding with an immediate policy consequence belongs in commentary, where it will reach officials and journalists within days. Contributors who match the two, and who state their funding and affiliations plainly, move through review with fewer surprises.