RSIS Submission Guidelines: Publishing with the S. Rajaratnam School

Key Takeaways

• RSIS runs five publication channels with different lengths and review paths. Choose the series before you draft, because format rules decide acceptance more often than prose quality.
• The RSIS Commentary is the most accessible entry point and the hardest to write well: one argument, a named evidence base, a regional consequence, and no footnotes.
• Commentaries move in days to weeks after acceptance. Working papers and monographs take months because reviewers have to be found and their reports returned.
• Editors decline survey pieces, drafts with no Asia-Pacific angle, overlapping submissions, and text that has already appeared elsewhere.
• Outlet choice sets the audience. RSIS reaches Southeast Asian officials and defence academies; East Asia Forum and The Interpreter reach broader policy readerships; technology policy work sometimes fits a specialist outlet better.

1. Introduction

The S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS) is a research school at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore. It began in 1996 as the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies and took its current name in 2007, after Singapore's first foreign minister. Its commentaries reach ministries, embassies, defence colleges, and university reading lists across the region.

Authors who want to publish there tend to arrive with the same questions. What does RSIS accept? How long should the piece be? Who reviews it, and how long does that take? Can a doctoral candidate without a professorship get a foot in the door?

Most of the difficulty comes from treating RSIS as one publication with one rulebook. It runs several series, each with its own length, review path, and editorial priorities. A 10,000-word working paper sent to the commentary desk will sit unread. A short opinion column pitched as a monograph gets a polite decline.

This article maps the publication families, explains how pitching and review work in practice, sets out the conventions RSIS editors enforce, and compares RSIS with other outlets where an Asia-Pacific or technology policy author might place the same piece.

2. Choosing the right RSIS series

Format decides acceptance more often than writing quality does, so pick the series first and write to its constraints. RSIS publishes across five main channels, and the research centres behind them shape topical fit. The International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research runs the counterterrorism journal. The Centre of Excellence for National Security, the Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies, the Centre for Multilateralism Studies, and the China programme anchor most of the security, maritime, trade, and climate work that appears in commentary form.

Word limits shift over time, and the editorial team confirms the exact target when it accepts a pitch. The figures below are working approximations.

Before pitching, read the ten most recent items in the series you are targeting. Note the structure, the length, and how much referencing the editors allow. That reading tells you more about house expectations than any style document will.

3. The pitch, the review, and the timeline

A one-page pitch with a clear argument and a reason for timing gets a faster answer than an unsolicited full draft. For commentaries and policy reports, the pitch is the standard entry point, and it should cover five things:

1. A working headline.
2. The argument in two or three sentences.
3. The evidence you will draw on, whether interviews, datasets, treaty texts, or budget documents.
4. Why the piece should appear now.
5. A short biography covering your current affiliation, relevant publications, and any access that supports the piece.

Send it to the submission address listed on the relevant series page. Addresses differ between the commentary desk and the specialist journal, so check the page instead of reusing one from an older call for papers.

What follows varies by series. Accepted commentaries typically appear within days to a few weeks, with one or two rounds of editing. Working papers and monographs take months, because reviewers have to be identified and their reports returned. Editors often ask for a narrower argument at pitch stage, and accepting that narrowing is usually faster than defending the original scope.

Three practical cautions:

• Say so if the piece is also under consideration elsewhere. Most think tanks want first publication rights and will not run text that has already appeared, including on a personal newsletter or an institutional blog.
• Agree on an embargo date before submitting if the piece is tied to a report launch or a conference.
• Read the copyright and reuse terms on the series page. Commentaries generally let authors republish with attribution, but the specific terms differ by series and are revised from time to time.

Ask the editor for an expected decision date in the pitch email. Response times depend on how full the editorial calendar is, and a stated date saves you from guessing whether to wait or send the piece elsewhere.

4. House conventions that decide whether a draft survives editing

Accepted commentaries share a set of habits, and drafts that miss them come back with heavy marks.

Lead with the finding. The first two sentences should carry the claim. Background arrives later, and only in the amount a busy reader needs to follow the argument.

Anchor the piece in the region. Almost every accepted commentary answers a question about Asia-Pacific security, economics, or governance. A draft about domestic politics in Washington or Brussels needs an explicit regional consequence, otherwise it belongs in a different outlet.

Attribute inside the sentence. Commentaries carry few or no footnotes. Name the ministry, the dataset, the court ruling, or the vote count. An unsourced figure is one of the most common reasons a draft comes back for revision.

Keep analysis separate from advocacy. RSIS publishes work read by officials and scholars who disagree with each other. A draft that reads as campaign material for a government, an opposition party, or an advocacy group will be trimmed or declined.

Close on implications. The final paragraph states what the finding means for policy, or what decision-makers should watch next. Repeating the argument in fresh words uses up the last hundred words of the piece.

Working papers carry a heavier load. They need a methods section, a position in the existing literature, and enough evidence for a reader to check the central claim. They also take longer to appear, so a topic tied to a news cycle belongs in the commentary series.

Reasons for decline, in roughly the order editors cite them:

• The draft summarises a report or an event without adding an argument.
• The regional angle is missing, or appears only in the last paragraph.
• The text has already run elsewhere.
• The submission arrives without a biography or contact details.
• The claim is broader than the evidence, such as one interview used to describe a national trend.

After drafting, delete the opening paragraph and read the piece again. If the argument still stands, that paragraph was setup the reader did not need.

5. Comparing RSIS with other policy outlets

Outlet choice changes who reads the piece and how often it is cited later. The comparison below covers RSIS alongside four places where Asia-Pacific and technology policy authors commonly publish.

Two or three of these may fit the same draft. The deciding factor is the reader you want to reach and whether your evidence is time-sensitive. If you need a peer-reviewed record rather than a policy audience, look at journals in the field such as Contemporary Southeast Asia or Asian Security, and treat the commentary route as a separate piece rather than a version of the same manuscript.

Publishing the same research at both a policy outlet and a journal works only when the two texts differ. A commentary that summarises a forthcoming article is acceptable at most think tanks; a commentary that reproduces the article is not.

6. FAQ

Q1. Do I need a PhD or an academic affiliation to publish an RSIS Commentary?

No. Editors weigh the argument, the evidence, and the author's access to information. Policy school commentary series routinely publish government analysts, military officers, journalists with deep beat knowledge, and doctoral candidates. The biography in your pitch has to show why you can speak to this topic, and that is the part applicants most often rush.

Q2. How long does RSIS take to respond, and can I submit to two outlets at once?

Commentaries usually get an answer faster than working papers, because the review stays internal. Ask for an expected decision date when you pitch. On simultaneous submissions, most think tanks want first publication rights, so disclose any other outlet considering the piece. If two editors accept at once, withdraw from one before either publishes.

Q3. Are RSIS Commentaries peer reviewed?

They are not. Commentaries go through internal editorial review, which checks accuracy, sourcing, tone, and length. Working papers and monographs go through a stronger process that can include external readers. If you need a peer-reviewed citation for a tenure file or a grant report, aim for the working paper series, the monograph series, or a journal.

Q4. Can I republish my RSIS piece somewhere else?

Usually yes, with attribution to RSIS and a link to the original, because the arrangement is normally non-exclusive. Terms differ between the commentary series and the specialist journal, and some publishers require a delay before republication. Check the notice on the published piece or ask the editor before you repost it.

7. Conclusion

RSIS is worth the effort when your argument speaks to Asia-Pacific policy and you can support it with named evidence. The submission process itself is less forbidding than the institution's reputation suggests, provided the pitch goes to the right series and the draft stays short, sourced, and regional.

Two routes suit different goals. Authors with a timely finding and a specific regional reader should treat the commentary series as the primary target, because the format rewards speed and a single clear claim. Authors building a citable record should budget several months and go through the working paper or journal route, where reviewers will ask for methods and a literature position that a commentary never requires. Commentaries that answer one question for one identifiable reader move through editorial review fastest.