Issues in Science and Technology Submission Guidelines

Key Takeaways

• Issues in Science and Technology publishes argument-led policy essays for readers who do not share the author's specialty, so the proposal carries as much weight as the manuscript.
• Length, exclusivity, and AI disclosure rules live on each publisher's own editorial page. A policy that applies at Survival or Orbis does not transfer to a different journal.
• Verify the editor, address, and current guidelines on the live official page before sending unpublished or confidential material to anyone.
• Short-form venues such as RUSI Newsbrief, the Center for Global Development blog, and technology policy outlets publish faster than a quarterly journal, which suits early-career authors building a record.

1. Introduction

Anyone who submits policy writing to more than one venue runs into the same obstacle. The guidelines saved from last year describe a different editor, a different word limit, or an AI policy that has since been rewritten. Journals update their submission pages without announcing the change, and third-party summaries lag months behind the source.

Issues in Science and Technology is a common first target for researchers who want to reach policy audiences. The journal is published by the National Academies and Arizona State University, and it sits between a scholarly publication and a general-interest magazine. Contributors are expected to know the evidence. Readers are not expected to share the author's training. That combination creates specific editorial expectations, and the process rewards writers who understand them before drafting several thousand words.

This guide covers what the journal's readership implies for a pitch, how AI and disclosure rules differ across the think tank and journal ecosystem, which administrative checks keep a submission from being mishandled, and which outlet suits which kind of author. Details that change quarter to quarter, including word limits, editor names, and submission portals, need confirmation on the outlet's live page, because that page is the version the editor will apply.

2. What the journal expects from a proposal

Issues in Science and Technology buys arguments. Editorial teams at journals of this type usually want to see a proposal before a finished draft, and the strongest proposals state a claim about a policy failure or a decision point that is live right now.

The readership explains the format. Agency staff, congressional aides, university administrators, and researchers reading outside their own field make up much of the audience. An article that opens with a literature review loses them in the second paragraph. What holds attention is a named problem, evidence a non-specialist can follow, and a recommendation that identifies who could act on it. A piece that describes a problem without pointing at a decision-maker tends to stall in the review queue, because the editor cannot see what changes if the article runs.

Practical advice for the pitch:

• Keep it to a single page. Cover the problem, why it is live now, what current policy assumes, what you would change, and one line on your standing to write it.
• Name the decision. "Agency program offices should publish their validation data" gives an editor something to work with. "Policymakers must think seriously about this" does not.
• Say what is new. Editors ask whether the same argument already ran elsewhere this year.
• Read the two most recent issues before pitching. A draft written for a specialist journal needs restructuring, not light editing.
• Expect rewriting. Generalist venues edit for clarity and check claims against sources, so authors who treat their prose as final usually end up disappointed.

For authors outside the United States, the domestic policy frame matters. The journal's default reference points are American institutions, which means a British or European author may need to explain why the argument travels, or send the piece to an outlet where the policy context already matches.

3. AI and disclosure rules change from outlet to outlet

AI rules in this sector are outlet-specific, and several major venues now publish their own wording. RUSI's Newsbrief contributor guidance is one written example, and the same publisher's Journal runs under separate terms. Survival at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, Orbis, Responsible Statecraft, and Security Dialogue each carry their own policy. Some ban AI drafting outright. Others permit AI for copy-editing or translation with disclosure. A few say nothing, which leaves the decision with the editor handling your manuscript.

When the wording is ambiguous, ask for a specific editorial interpretation. Importing the most permissive policy from a neighboring outlet is a reliable way to get a submission rejected on procedural grounds, and that outcome wastes the months you spent drafting.

A workable habit is to keep a short record of what tool you used and on which sections. One sentence in the cover note handles disclosure in most cases: "An AI assistant was used to copy-edit sections 2 and 3; all sources and claims were verified by the author." If the outlet prohibits AI editing, revise by hand or send the piece somewhere that permits it. Fact-checking stays with the author under every policy reviewed for this guide. No tool takes on that liability, and editors know it.

4. Administrative checks before anything leaves your drafts folder

Verify the recipient on the live official page. Do not send confidential research material because an address appears in an old guide, a conference handout, or a colleague's saved copy. Editorial offices move, staff change roles, and a generic inbox may route your manuscript to someone who no longer commissions.

Four checks come before any upload or email attachment:

1. Confirm the editor's name and the submission channel on the outlet's current page.
2. Get coauthor approval in writing. A submission that a coauthor has not seen can be withdrawn later, and that conversation is worse after the fact.
3. Prepare disclosures: funding sources, conflicts, prior publication, and any embargo the piece is under.
4. Check the exclusivity rule. Most journals in this class expect a submitted manuscript to be under consideration at one venue only. Query letters work differently, and you can send several in parallel if you say so in each note.

The research behind this guide made no submission to any outlet, so the checks described here come from published guidance rather than from an accepted manuscript.

A realistic route for an external author without an editor's phone number looks like this:

1. Shortlist three outlets and rank them by audience fit.
2. Read the current guidelines page for each, plus two recent pieces, to match register and length.
3. Send a one-page pitch to the first-choice editor, noting that it is a simultaneous query if you are approaching others.
4. Wait for the stated response window before following up once.
5. Draft only after an editor expresses interest, unless the guidelines invite full manuscripts.
6. Clear approvals and disclosures, then submit through the channel the outlet names.
7. Log the date and the editor's name so a later follow-up is specific.

5. Matching the outlet to your draft

The material below compares venues that publish outside authors, with the strengths and limits that matter when you decide where a draft belongs.

One format worth separating out: the Hoover Institution's GoodFellows is a recorded conversation programme, so treat it as an invitation-based media channel rather than a submissions route. Sending a manuscript there wastes the pitch.

6. FAQ

Q1. Can I submit the same draft to several outlets at once?

Query letters can go out in parallel, and you should say so in each note. Submitted manuscripts are different. Most journals in this class expect exclusive consideration once a full draft is with them. Check the exclusivity wording on the outlet's current guidelines page, and if it is unclear, ask the editor before you send.

Q2. Does Issues in Science and Technology accept AI-assisted drafts?

That answer sits on the journal's submission page, not in a general guide. AI policies in this sector are outlet-specific, and written rules now exist at RUSI Newsbrief, the RUSI Journal, Survival, Orbis, Responsible Statecraft, and Security Dialogue, among others. When the published wording is ambiguous, request a specific editorial interpretation instead of assuming another outlet's permissive rule applies.

Q3. Do I need coauthor approval and disclosures before submitting?

Yes. Confirm coauthor approval and prepare any necessary disclosures before a manuscript leaves your drafts folder. Funding, conflicts, and prior publication are the usual items, and journals ask for them at different stages of review.

Q4. How long should the article be?

There is no single figure across these venues. Newsbrief-style commentary and development blog posts run short, while journal essays run considerably longer. Use the number on the outlet's live page, and if the page gives a range, pitch at the low end and let the editor ask for expansion.

7. Conclusion

The submission guideline that governs your piece is the one on the outlet's current page, so build the habit of checking it before you draft and again before you send. Deciding where to submit comes first: Issues in Science and Technology suits an author who can turn research into an argument for readers outside the field, and who can wait through a quarterly cycle for the result. Authors on a faster clock, or without a track record at the large institutes, get more from RUSI Newsbrief, the Center for Global Development blog, or a technology policy outlet, then bring a longer essay to a journal once the byline exists. Whichever route you take, verify the editor, clear your coauthors, and write the pitch before the manuscript.