EAF’s editors seek to showcase commentary on economics, politics and public policy in Asia and the Pacific that draws upon the special expertise of contributing authors, and serves the needs of a geographically and professionally diverse readership, advancing the conversation about Asia’s future more broadly.

With this in mind, the first thing to think about when writing an EAF article is how not to write an EAF article—and an important starting point is not to duplicate what is already available in the English-language mainstream media. Surveys of our readership base indicate that EAF has a well-informed audience who also read high-quality international media outlets and other university and think tank-based online publications. 

For this reason, our editors look for commentaries that bring something new to the table. While we will always strive for timely publication of material, because of EAF’s rigorous editing process—which includes subjecting all original submissions to double-blind peer review—we can’t try to match the mainstream press in terms of the pace of getting commentary online in response to a breaking news event. The aim instead is to add value to the conversation through a commentary that is grounded in historical or comparative perspectives, big underlying trends and shifts that are not widely understood, new or overlooked data, or that otherwise offers a novel reinterpretation of a well-covered issue. 

Think of it this way: it’s more important to have the last word on something than the first. EAF articles are analysis, not news reporting. It’s about making research accessible, giving readers new ways to think about issues and to give a platform to in-country experts to explain their perspectives to the English speaking world.

Our editors love to see drafts that combine the analytical and empirical rigour of academic writing with the accessibility and flair of mainstream media op-ed writing.

That means:

• Don’t write your piece as a miniature journal article, with a standard introduction–background–empirics–conclusion structure
• Avoid constructions such as ‘first, second, third’—try to make your argument flow from paragraph to paragraph without these
• Don’t use signposting paragraphs or explain that ‘in this article, I will…’ or make references to ‘this article…’. With the limited space, it is better to just tell the reader what the point is
• Don’t use academic jargon that might not be well-understood outside your field, and if you have to use technical or specialised terms, explain very briefly what these terms mean. If it’s necessary, it needs to be explained
• Don’t include tables or charts—explain statistical evidence in clear and concise language in the text, with an emphasis on explaining the trends that emerge from the data
• Always hyperlink to data sources and references. If you have longer work to point the reader to, that should be explicitly mentioned in the byline.  

Most of all, make an argument! Though the facts and figures in your piece are important, it’s the takeaway argument of your piece based off these data that readers will remember (and a clear argument will also get you a bigger audience.) We encourage you to ‘hook’ your piece by linking to existing academic writing, major events or mainstream media commentary on the same topic—it makes it clear to readers that your piece appears as part of an ongoing conversation among experts, and helps them understand why your argument offers something fresh.

If your piece requires you to forecast events or trends, it’s OK to equivocate if there is genuine uncertainty about the future of the issue you’re addressing, but explain to readers why that uncertainty exists—don’t just fall back on cliches like ‘only time will tell.’

To ensure that we offer readers the highest quality analysis in a readable and accessible format, EAF applies a careful double-blind peer review and copy editing process to all submissions. 

Academic authors will be familiar with this process, which is a standard part of all academic publishing including in books, journals and many other papers. For those with less experience with the peer review process, note that it means that before we begin our edit, your piece will be anonymised and passed by two reviewers who are experts of standing in the field. They will offer you brief comments, also anonymous, on whether the piece is suitable for publication at EAF and what, if anything, could be done to improve the analysis or drafting of the article. 

Authors need to take reviewer feedback on board, but you will have the opportunity to respond to review comments that you think have misunderstood your arguments. Note that if our editors feel that reviewers have raised serious issues with the quality of your piece, we may decline to proceed with the editing process unless you make changes to your draft to take account of specific issues reviewers raise.

The review and editing process involve significant resources, including EAF’s large network of generous voluntary reviewers, which comprises past authors, experts of standing in the field, and we appreciate your patience while it is concluded. As everyone trying to publish their work should know and understand, the professional expectation is that you not submit your work to more than one potential outlet at the same time!  

Finally, if you’re not completely confident in your English language ability, please don’t hesitate to submit to EAF. Our team is happy to work with you to make sure your piece is fit to be published to standard Australian English.