The Devpolicy Blog supports robust discussion of aid and development analysis, research and policy comment. You can join the discussion by signing up for Devpolicy emails, submitting a blog, or commenting on a blog.
+ Sign up to our mailing list
+ Submit a blog
The Devpolicy Blog provides a platform for the best in aid and development analysis, research and policy comment, with global coverage and a strong focus on Australia and its immediate region. Established in 2010, the blog is run by the Development Policy Centre at the Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University. The Devpolicy Blog editorial team consists of Robin Davies, Stephen Howes, Amita Monterola, Anne Moorhead and Sadhana Sen.
Our readers are analysts, policymakers, academics, researchers, advocates, development practitioners, public servants, consultants and students. While their fields of interests converge, their knowledge, experience and perspectives vary. Our three areas of focus are Australian aid, the Pacific and Papua New Guinea, and global development policy.
Unsolicited blog posts are welcome, though publication is not guaranteed, and revisions may be requested. Acceptance of articles is based on quality and relevance. All points of view are welcome.
General guidelines for posts are that they should be:
- no longer than 1000 words
- attributed to individuals (not an organisation or anonymous author) and
- must have sources provided as hyperlinks (not footnotes).
Authors are encouraged to include a photo (feature image) to accompany their submission. You must hold the rights to, or demonstrate that you have permission to use, any photos you submit (72–96 dpi resolution). All articles and photos accepted for publication will be published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Submissions should also include a photo and short (one or two sentence) biography for each author.
Submissions should be sent to the blog editors.
The blog editors will only communicate with blog authors, not with intermediaries. Rare exceptions will be made in the case of ‘VIP’ blogs, e.g. blogs written by Ministers.
Authors who have affiliations or conflicts of interest that readers should be aware of must declare them in a disclosure statement. Disclosure statements should include information on any relevant: sources of funding/support (financial or in-kind) for the work; employment/consultancy inputs or arrangements; professional or personal affiliations and holdings. If you are unsure whether a particular affiliation or interest should be disclosed, please discuss this with the blog editors at the time of submission.
Final decisions on disclosure requirements rest with the blog editors.
Detailed guidelines for posts are laid out in this guide [PDF]. Please follow them, but don’t be intimidated. We run a flexible and informal blog. We do try hard to avoid spelling and grammar mistakes. When in doubt, be consistent!
We may edit your post. We will send you a revised post if the changes are major. If they are small, you will have to trust us. We will make as few changes as possible.
Some articles may be promoted to regional outlets for republication. If you do not want us to promote your blog, please let the blog editors know. Note that regional media may republish under a Creative Commons licence even if we don’t promote your article.
+ Comment on a blog
We welcome comments on blogs. Comments may be edited (without consultation) for grammar and punctuation as well. We will not publish personal attacks. We may remove part of your comment if we think that part constitutes a personal attack. Criticism of organisations as against individuals is welcome if it serves a good purpose. It should not be gratuitous, but well-founded, based either on experience or argument. We welcome robust debate, but avoid sweeping, unfounded attacks.
While we like to publish as many comments as possible, and do not subject them to the same level of quality control as blog posts, we may hold back comments which contain harsh criticism with no attempt at all to give that criticism a justified base.
Commenters who have affiliations that readers should be aware of, or conflicts of interest, must declare them. Commenters should identify themselves by their full names unless there are good reasons for not doing so. Accusations of illegal conduct are unlikely to be published.