Penyerahan Naskah

Research Article

Research Articles present original and significant contributions to knowledge in strategic and international studies. They may be empirical, theoretical, conceptual, methodological, or a combination thereof. The journal welcomes qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-method research, including comparative studies, case studies, process tracing, archival research, surveys, interviews, discourse analysis, content analysis, and other rigorous approaches appropriate to the research question.

Originality does not necessarily require the collection of primary data. A Research Article may make an original contribution by developing or refining a concept, theory, analytical framework, interpretation, methodology, or explanation. However, purely descriptive accounts that do not articulate a clear research problem, analytical approach, and scholarly contribution will not be considered.

Research Articles should demonstrate:

• a clearly formulated research problem or question;
• meaningful engagement with relevant international scholarship;
• an appropriate and transparent research design or analytical approach;
• logically developed findings or arguments;
• a clear theoretical, empirical, methodological, or practical contribution; and
• relevance to the scope and readership of SPDR.

Length

Research Articles should normally contain between 6,000 and 10,000 words. Manuscripts exceeding 10,000 words will only be considered in exceptional circumstances and with prior approval from the editors.

Abstract and keywords

A Research Article must include an unstructured abstract of no more than 300 words. The abstract should concisely communicate:

• the research problem or question;
• the purpose of the study;
• the theoretical or analytical approach;
• the methodology or sources of evidence;
• the principal findings or argument; and
• the article’s main contribution.

The abstract should not contain citations, undefined abbreviations, tables, or figures.

Authors must also provide four to six keywords. Keywords should be specific, searchable, and not merely repeat words already appearing in the journal’s title.

Recommended structure

Research Articles should normally follow this structure:

1. Title;
2. Abstract;
3. Keywords;
4. Introduction;
5. Literature review and/or theoretical framework;
6. Research methodology or Analytical Approach;
7. Results and discussion (can be separated as two sections);
8. Conclusion;
9. Acknowledgement (optional);
10. Author contributions
11. Funding (optional);
12. Conflict of interest;
13. Generative AI statement
14. Informed consent statement
15. Ethics Approval / Institutional Review Board Statement
16. About the author(s)
17. ORCID (optional)
18. Data availability statement
19. References.

The Introduction should identify the research problem, explain its significance, engage with the relevant scholarly debate, state the research question or central argument, and clarify the article’s contribution.

The Conclusion should not merely repeat the findings. It should explain the broader theoretical, empirical, or policy implications of the study, acknowledge relevant limitations, and identify possible directions for future research.

SPDR recognises that research traditions in strategic policy and diplomacy vary considerably. Authors of theoretical, conceptual, interpretive, historical, or critical studies may adapt the recommended structure where necessary. Nevertheless, the manuscript must clearly present its research problem, engagement with the literature, analytical approach, central argument, contribution, and conclusion.

Review Article

Review Articles provide a rigorous, critical, and original synthesis of existing scholarship on an important or emerging subject within the scope of SPDR. A Review Article must do more than summarise previous publications. It should evaluate the state of knowledge, identify patterns and disagreements, assess conceptual or methodological limitations, and develop a meaningful agenda for future research.

SPDR welcomes:

• systematic literature reviews;
• scoping reviews;
• bibliometric reviews;
• integrative reviews;
• critical reviews;
• narrative literature reviews; and
• reviews combining bibliometric and qualitative synthesis.

Review Articles should demonstrate:

• a clearly defined review question or objective;
• justification for the selected type of review;
• a transparent and reproducible search or literature-selection strategy;
• critical rather than merely descriptive engagement with the literature;
• synthesis of major theories, findings, methods, or debates;
• identification of significant gaps or limitations; and
• an original conceptual, theoretical, methodological, or research agenda.

Systematic and scoping reviews should follow an appropriate reporting standard, such as PRISMA, where applicable. Authors should include a study-selection flow diagram and explain the databases, search terms, eligibility criteria, screening procedures, and methods of synthesis.

Narrative and critical reviews are not required to follow PRISMA. However, authors must still explain how the literature was identified, selected, delimited, and analysed. A narrative review based only on an unspecified or arbitrary selection of publications will not be considered.

Length

Review Articles should normally contain between 5,000 and 8,000 words.

Abstract and keywords

A Review Article must include an unstructured abstract of no more than 300 words. The abstract should concisely state:

• the background and purpose of the review;
• the review question or scope;
• the review design and sources;
• the principal patterns or findings;
• the major knowledge gaps; and
• the review’s contribution or proposed research agenda.

The abstract should not contain citations, undefined abbreviations, tables, or figures.

Authors must provide four to six specific and searchable keywords.

Recommended structure

Review Articles should normally follow this structure:

1. Title;
2. Abstract;
3. Keywords;
4. Introduction;
5. Background or conceptual context;
6. Review methodology;
7. Results or descriptive overview of the literature;
8. Thematic, theoretical, or critical synthesis;
9. Discussion;
10. Research gaps and future research agenda;
11. Conclusion;
12. Acknowledgement (optional);
13. Author contributions
14. Funding (optional);
15. Conflict of interest;
16. Generative AI statement
17. Informed consent statement
18. Ethics Approval / Institutional Review Board Statement
19. About the author(s)
20. ORCID (optional)
21. Data availability statement
22. References.

The Review Methodology should identify, where relevant:

• the type and design of the review;
• databases and other sources consulted;
• date on which the search was conducted;
• complete search terms or search strings;
• publication period covered;
• language and document-type restrictions;
• inclusion and exclusion criteria;
• screening and selection procedures;
• data extraction procedures; and
• methods of analysis or synthesis.

Authors may adapt the headings for integrative, narrative, or critical reviews. Nevertheless, the methods used to identify, select, and analyse the literature must remain explicit and defensible.

Policy and Practice Notes

Policy and Practice Notes provide concise, evidence-based analysis of significant contemporary developments in strategic and international affairs. They are intended to connect academic knowledge with policymaking and professional practice.

This section welcomes contributions from academics, government officials, diplomats, defence and security practitioners, members of international and regional organisations, civil-society actors, and think-tank researchers.

A Policy and Practice Note may:

• examine an emerging foreign-policy or security challenge;
• evaluate an existing policy, programme, institution, or diplomatic initiative;
• compare alternative policy options;
• derive broader lessons from diplomatic or professional practice;
• assess the practical implications of recent geopolitical developments; or
• propose feasible and evidence-based policy recommendations.

Policy and Practice Notes must be analytically rigorous and supported by credible evidence. They should not take the form of journalistic commentary, advocacy statements, institutional promotion, personal opinion, or unsupported policy prescription.

The manuscript should:

• define a specific policy or practice-related problem;
• explain why the issue is strategically important and timely;
• use relevant scholarly literature, policy documents, data, or professional evidence;
• assess the implications of the evidence;
• consider realistic policy options or lessons; and
• present clear, feasible, and actionable recommendations.

Length

Policy and Practice Notes should normally contain between 3,000 and 5,000 words.

Abstract and keywords

A Policy and Practice Note must include an unstructured abstract of no more than 300 words. The abstract should concisely state:

• the policy problem or practical issue;
• the purpose and scope of the analysis;
• the evidence or analytical basis;
• the principal assessment; and
• the main policy or practical recommendations.

The abstract should not contain citations, undefined abbreviations, tables, or figures.

Authors must provide four to six specific and searchable keywords.

Recommended structure

Policy and Practice Notes should normally follow this structure:

1. Title;
2. Abstract;
3. Keywords;
4. Key Takeaways;
5. Introduction (Policy Context);
6. Definition of the Policy Problem;
7. Evidence and Analysis;
8. Policy Options or Lessons for Practice;
9. Policy Implications;
10. Actionable Recommendations;
11. Conclusion;
12. Acknowledgement (optional);
13. Author contributions
14. Funding (optional);
15. Conflict of interest;
16. Generative AI statement
17. Informed consent statement
18. Ethics Approval / Institutional Review Board Statement
19. About the author(s)
20. ORCID (optional)
21. Data availability statement
22. References.

The Key Takeaways section should contain three to five concise bullet points summarising the problem, principal assessment, and most important recommendations.

Recommendations should follow logically from the evidence presented in the manuscript. Authors should consider their feasibility, potential limitations, relevant stakeholders, implementation requirements, and possible unintended consequences.

A Policy and Practice Note should maintain academic standards of evidence and citation while remaining accessible to policymakers and practitioners. Technical language and discipline-specific terminology should therefore be used only where necessary and clearly explained.

Book Reviews

Book Reviews provide critical and scholarly evaluations of recently published books relevant to strategic policy and diplomacy studies. Priority will be given to books that contribute to contemporary debates concerning the Indo-Pacific, international security, foreign policy, diplomacy, international political economy, regionalism, global governance, and related fields.

Books reviewed should normally have been published within the previous three years. Reviews of older books may be considered when a new edition has been published or when the book has renewed relevance to a major theoretical, strategic, or policy debate.

A Book Review should not merely provide a chapter-by-chapter summary. It should:

• identify the book’s principal argument and objectives;
• situate the book within the relevant literature or debate;
• evaluate its theoretical, empirical, and methodological contribution;
• assess the quality and adequacy of its evidence;
• discuss its principal strengths and limitations;
• identify its relevance to SPDR readers; and
• provide a fair, substantiated, and intellectually constructive assessment.

Reviewers must disclose any personal or professional relationship with the book’s author or editor that could create a real or perceived conflict of interest. SPDR will not normally accept reviews written by individuals from the same institution as the author or editor of the reviewed book.

Length

Book Reviews should normally contain between 1,500 and 2,500 words.

Abstract and keywords

Book Reviews do not require an abstract or keywords.

Recommended structure

Book Reviews should normally follow this structure:

1. Title of the Review;
2. Complete Bibliographic Information of the Book;
3. Reviewer’s Name and Institutional Affiliation;
4. Introduction and Context;
5. Overview of the Book’s Central Argument;
6. Critical Evaluation;
7. Contribution to the Field and Relevance to SPDR Readers;
8. Concluding Assessment; and
9. References, where sources other than the reviewed book are cited.

The bibliographic information should follow this general format:

Author’s or Editor’s Full Name, Title of the Book, Place of Publication: Publisher, Year of Publication, total number of pages, ISBN.

Book Reviews are normally commissioned by the editors. Authors wishing to submit an unsolicited review should contact the editorial office before preparing the complete manuscript. Submission of a review does not guarantee publication, and the editors reserve the right to decline reviews that do not align with the journal’s scope or editorial priorities.