International Crisis Group Submission Guidelines

Key Takeaways

• Crisis Group publishes through commissioning. Staff and contracted field researchers write most reports and briefings, so there is no general open-submission queue.
• The realistic entry point for an outside expert is a one-page concept note built around a live policy decision in a specific country, plus evidence of field access.
• Crisis Group reports end with recommendations addressed to named actors. A proposal that cannot say who should do what rarely gets commissioned.
• Independence rules shape the writing. The organisation recommends policy without endorsing conflict parties, and it publishes its donor list each year.
• Editorial contacts and regional priorities change. Confirm current contact details on crisisgroup.org before sending anything.

1. Introduction

Crisis Group's conflict analysis reaches foreign ministries, UN agencies and newsrooms within days of publication. That readership is why academics, former officials and field practitioners keep asking how to publish with the organisation.

The structure of the place explains most of the confusion. International Crisis Group does not operate like a magazine with an inbox of waiting drafts. Research staff and field offices produce analysis on conflicts they live with, and the editorial team commissions the rest from consultants, partner organisations and invited authors. Approach it as a research institution and the path in becomes visible. Approach it as an op-ed desk and a well-argued 1,500-word piece about a conflict the organisation has covered for a decade will sit unanswered.

This guide covers what Crisis Group publishes, what a commissionable proposal looks like, how review and publication run, and which writers fit which outlet when Crisis Group is not the right home.

2. How Crisis Group's editorial pipeline works

The publishing list is narrower than most outsiders assume, and each format draws a different kind of author.

Reports carry the most weight with policymakers, and they take the longest. Field research, internal review and translation into French, Arabic, Spanish and other languages mean a report can reach readers in the countries it discusses. Commentaries move fastest and give an outside writer a first credit inside the organisation.

Match your material to the format before you pitch. Original interviews with people who cannot be quoted elsewhere belong in a report or briefing proposal. Analysis of material that is already public belongs in a commentary. Sending a commentary pitch to a regional program director who commissions multi-month field research wastes both sides' time.

Read the last six to twelve months of output for your region, including the recommendations sections, and note where your evidence would change a conclusion. That comparison is the pitch.

3. What a commissionable proposal contains

A proposal that gets a reply answers four questions in the opening paragraph: which decision is in play, who makes it, why now, and what access you have that the organisation lacks.

• The decision. Name the actor and the decision point: a Security Council mandate renewal, a peace talks round, a budget vote, a sanctions review, an election commission ruling.
• The gap. Say what Crisis Group's recent output already covers and what your research adds to it.
• Access. List the institutions, communities or officials you can reach, and the languages you work in.
• Timing. Give the window that matters and explain what makes the next three to six months the moment for it.
• Output. Suggest a format and an approximate length.
• Position. Disclose your funding, affiliations and any government or corporate role. Reviewers need this before they can judge independence.
• Ethics. Note how you would handle consent and source protection if the work involves vulnerable people.

Several things end a pitch early. Framing the project as awareness raising or as advocacy for a cause. Writing that assumes one side should prevail and asks the reader to help. Desk research on a conflict the organisation covers from the ground. A demand for approval rights over editing. A topic already served by a standing project, with no new evidence attached.

Crisis Group states that it recommends policy without endorsing parties to a conflict, and it publishes its donors annually. Contributors who hold government, military or corporate positions should expect questions about independence, and those questions are easier to answer in the first email than in the third.

4. From acceptance to publication

Once a proposal is accepted, the work moves through a sequence that takes weeks for a commentary and several months for a report.

1. Concept note and a call with the relevant program director.
2. Full proposal with research plan, timeline and budget.
3. Contract as a consultant or commissioned author, covering fee and expenses.
4. Fieldwork or interviews, with security and data protocols agreed beforehand.
5. Drafting to house structure: executive summary, then recommendations, then analysis.
6. Internal review by the regional team and editorial staff, with the author responding to comments.
7. Fact-checking, legal read and translation into selected languages.
8. Publication under embargo, with distribution to policymakers and journalists.

Write the recommendations section first. It is the part ministers and mediators read, and the analysis exists to support it. Keep raw interview material organised and attributable only where consent allows, because fact-checkers will ask for the basis of specific claims.

Ask about reuse and exclusivity before signing. Publications of this type usually hold rights to the published text and to translations, and they may ask that the material not appear elsewhere first. Budget conversations go better at proposal stage than after the draft is finished. Verify the names and titles of officials shortly before publication, since governments reshuffle faster than editorial calendars.

Two cautions. Do not publish a shorter version of the same argument elsewhere while under contract. Do not promise a funder or employer a publication date before the editorial team has signed off.

5. Comparing outlets for policy writers

Crisis Group is one option among several. The right one depends on your evidence, your audience and how quickly you need to publish.

For a first byline, a fast commentary outlet returns feedback in days and builds the record that later supports a consultancy application. For research that funders and ministries will read closely, the Crisis Group route carries more weight. Many policy writers do both, keeping short commentary work for time-sensitive arguments and saving field research for commissioned projects.

6. FAQ

Q1. Does Crisis Group accept unsolicited articles?

There is no general open-submission queue. Commentaries are sometimes commissioned from outside experts, while reports are written by staff or contracted researchers. A one-page concept note sent to the relevant regional program gets a clearer answer than a finished 3,000-word draft. If the piece already exists, say so in a sentence and keep the first email short.

Q2. How long does publication take?

Commentaries can appear within days to a few weeks of acceptance. Briefings often take one to two months. Reports involve fieldwork, internal review, fact-checking and translation, so plan for several months between contract and publication, with the schedule driven by when research access is available.

Q3. Can I republish the piece elsewhere?

Get the terms in writing. Publications of this kind typically retain rights to the text and to translations, and they may ask that the material not appear elsewhere first. Some allow a version to be reposted after an interval with a credit line. Ask before signing, and check whether your employer or funder requires open-access deposit.

Q4. Do contributors get paid?

Contracted research comes with a fee and agreed expenses set out in the contract. Terms for commentary vary by region and format, so raise the question when you pitch rather than after acceptance. Retroactive negotiation is awkward for both sides.

7. Conclusion

The route into Crisis Group runs through research. A one-page note that names a decision, a decision-maker and the field access behind your evidence will be read by a program director. A finished argument about a conflict the organisation already covers from the ground usually will not.

Start with the last twelve months of regional output. Find the recommendation you think is wrong or missing, then write the concept note that explains how you would test it, and send it to the program responsible. If the answer is no, the same note works as a pitch to a faster commentary outlet, where a shorter version can build the track record that makes a later consultancy application stronger.