Editorial role, review process, and scope

Roles and responsibilities

Editors

Lead/primary editor: The lead editor is determined based on each editor's regional assignment. From the draft development stage onward, the lead editor guides the production in a direction that speaks to the needs of our users. The lead editor is responsible for:

• Identifying and building up any findings or trends that are new or striking with the authors and guiding them on how to make the findings central to the publication.

• Applying expertise in narrative argument construction to help authors develop, structure, and clearly articulate their arguments, ensuring their conclusions are driven by the data.

• Identifying any claims in the piece that require more supporting information, such as a citation or reference to ACLED data, and working with authors to integrate appropriate evidence to buttress their arguments.

• Ensuring the structure and framing of the piece takes into account the intended audience, the narrative around the conflict, and ACLED’s added value.

• Ensuring that publications are written in accessible language, avoid academic jargon, explain acronyms, contextualize information, and keep all material relevant to what is part of mainstream discussions. 

The lead editor is also responsible for reviewing any photos associated with the publication and preparing the report for publication after the final approval and proofreading. 

Secondary editor: Following the completion of the development stage, the secondary editor conducts a thorough final editorial review. This review will include the following:

• Line edit to enhance the quality and readability of prose.

• Stay alert for anomalies in the text regarding statistics and calculations, and if necessary prompt colleagues to check that references to ACLED dashboards are correct and replicable.

• Identify any outstanding ambiguities or unclear arguments and work with the author to enhance clarity.

• Proofread to remove errors and to ensure the text conforms to ACLED style and formatting guidelines.

• Fact-check information from external sources as necessary.

Proofreader: Following the approval stage, the proofreader (a third editor) does the final proofreading of the text before publication.

Collaborators

Author/s: Responsible for leading the drafting of the output, as well as guiding it through the review process. If a project has more than one author, one should be identified as the lead author, and they are responsible for addressing the reviewers’ comments.

Regional analyst/s: Responsible for the stat check and producing the visualizations, in collaboration with the author/s, lead editor, and multimedia designer (if applicable).

Multimedia designer: Responsible for proposing and developing any multimedia content for the output. This can range anywhere from finding an image to accompany the output or an entire multimedia project.

Approvers

Head of Analysis: Provides the final approval for analysis publications. In the outline stage, they are also responsible for providing feedback on the publication's analytical coherence, discussing the audience with the author, and approving the outline.

Head of External Affairs: Provides final approval for external affairs publications after reviewing them to ensure that the relevance for media (the target audience of EA publications) is clear and written in an appropriate style for the target audience.

Scope of the editors’ interventions

Proposal

The proposals are led by the Analysis team, as decided through the department’s agenda-setting process. While the primary editor may not have an official role, authors may reach out to their regional editor for advice before or during the proposal stage. The Analysis management team will discuss the audience with the author during the proposal stage and communicate it with the editors via the bottom section of the outline.

Analysis outline

Editors will nail down two key elements at this stage:

• Develop a clear understanding of the profile of the professional the report intends to engage with (audience).

• Determine the most appropriate format and structure. Before the author begins drafting, all involved parties (including Analysis) should agree on the format and structure, including selecting the band for word count. 

The editor will review the outline to provide feedback on how the information should be communicated. Consider the following questions:

Throughout the argument, are there any logical jumps or assumptions that aren’t described? 

• While the argument should follow the rigor expected of academic analysis, it should not assume the reader is aware of any academic concepts, including theatre of conflict/violence, fragmentation of conflict, diffusion of conflict, etc. 

• The use of analytical metrics should be accompanied by a clear explanation of their meaning, e.g., specific tags, conflict exposure, actor interactions, CAST predictions, Conflict Index rankings, etc.

Is there jargon, contextual information, or niche concepts that need to be clearly explained in the draft?

• The author doesn’t need to define them for the outline, but identifying them will be useful when they begin drafting, and it will make them aware that explaining a concept may take up a bit of their word count. 

However, are there any elements that are extra information but not vital to the argument, i.e., “insider baseball,” as identified by the Analysis team? 

• Often, authors will have a difficult time not including certain contextual information that is not directly related to the argument but is useful background. The editor will work with Analysis to ensure the right amount of information is included in the draft.

• If interesting/new, the information that’s not vital can be used for peripheral publications on the topic (Q&A, infographic, etc.). The editor will also take this opportunity to identify such opportunities that speak to a different user need/audience.  

The editor closely collaborates with the Analysis management team to ensure that the feedback given by all is addressed. The outline should be fully confirmed and clear before moving to draft development, as the editor will use it as a central guide for that phase. 

Additionally, at this stage, the editor should share their initial thoughts on potential points of interest for the media and social media teams through the "EA products" subtask.

Draft development (3 workweeks)

At this stage, the lead editor is tasked with providing in-depth writing and structuring support. The lead editor will work with the author on the following:

• Advise the author on how to draft a report that is clear, engaging, accurate, and identifies a clear ACLED added value. Thus, the draft should align with the structure, content, and argument approved in the outline.

• Apply expertise in narrative argument construction to help authors develop, structure, and clearly articulate their arguments ensuring that it’s clear to the reader that the conclusions are driven or informed by data.

• Identify any claims in the piece that require more supporting information, such as a citation or reference to ACLED data, and work with authors to integrate appropriate evidence to buttress their arguments.

• Ensure the structure and framing of the piece take into account the intended audience, the narrative around the conflict, and ACLED’s added value.

• The topic and core questions should be clearly identifiable in the introduction and all the sections within the report should build on the topic and core questions.

• Ensure that publications are written in accessible language, avoid academic jargon, explain acronyms, contextualize information, and keep all material relevant to the readers.

• Ensure that the word count remains within the band approved in the outline. Non-citation footnotes and text boxes are included in the word count.

• Identify a title for the piece. This can include alternate options for discussion during the editorial review phase. However, the title should be identified prior to submitting the draft for final review. The lead editor is responsible for finalizing the title before publication. 

The editors will follow this process:

First meeting

After the outline is approved, conduct an initial call with the author, and optionally the Research Analyst,  to discuss how to implement the following points that were agreed on in the outline:

• User needs (this will likely require some explanation as we start thinking this way). Consider the following: 

  • Who they have interacted with about X topic recently?

  • What is the ACLED added value?

  • Are there any planned external engagements?

  • Think about three people that would read this, and adjust to the one that would know the least. Until we have the results of the audience assessment, the first editor is a good indicator for when information is missing or over-explained.

• Voice/tone, other considerations (thinking about user needs).

• Visual elements.

Work with the author to develop a clear introduction and subsequent structure that is easy and clear for the reader to follow both the narrative and the argument. Consider the following: 

• How do we make sure the topic and question(s) are clearly explained in the introduction?  

• How will we get the targeted users interested from the first sentence? 

• How do we keep readers engaged throughout? 

• Does the concluding paragraph or section appropriately end the piece? 

Introductions: 

The introduction should entice the author to continue reading. Therefore, it should provide a clear explanation of the topic, why it’s relevant, and the question(s) the report aims to answer. It should not provide a summary of the overall argument (thus avoiding sounding like an academic abstract) because a good introduction should allow the reader to know what to expect in the report without it. Do make use of a news hook when appropriate. 

What is a hook? 

This term comes from journalism. It describes a part of the intro that helps the reader quickly understand the significance of the topic. Specifically, a news hook is often a recent development or incident that became high-profile and is related to the topic. Authors should be careful to not allow discussion of a single incident to take over the whole report. Rather, it should be used as an illustrative or narrative tool to help the reader see the relevance of the analysis that follows. 

•  For example - news hook: 

On 19 July 2024, a Houthi drone flew for some 16 hours from Yemen over a distance of more than 2,600 kilometers to reach Tel Aviv, where it killed one Israeli citizen and injured at least eight others. Although Houthi forces had been launching drones and missiles at Israel since October 2023, this was the first time a Houthi drone made it past Israeli air defenses, let alone resulted in casualties on Israeli soil. As perhaps one of the most emblematic Houthi drone attacks to date, it highlighted the group’s increasing ability to leverage drone technology. 

Drone warfare is becoming a prominent feature in modern military strategies and conflicts, with the proliferation of drones rapidly increasing across multiple conflicts. Whereas only three countries possessed armed drones in 2010, by 2024 that number had expanded to over 40 countries.3 In addition, one-way attacks and commercial off-the-shelf drones, used by both state and non-state actors, have significantly increased drone activity, with ACLED recording drone usage in conflict in at least 34 countries in 2023. Drones can have a decisive impact in war scenarios, with Houthi drone warfare strategies providing a compelling case study to answer the following question: Has drone technology altered the balance of power between the warring parties in the Yemen conflict?

• Example news hook that’s a not-so-recent development, but still relevant

On 22 January 2024, Prime Minister Narendra Modi inaugurated the Ram temple in Ayodhya at the site where the Babri mosque once stood, marking the unofficial start of the general elections campaign by his party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The construction of the temple, which had served as a rallying cry for Hindu nationalists since the mosque’s demolition by a Hindu mob, stirred up sentiments of Hindu pride across the country, with the BJP leading the celebrations. On the other hand, the principal opposition party, the Indian National Congress (INC), boycotted the ceremony, accusing the BJP of politicizing religion. The fanfare surrounding the inauguration also overlooked the temple’s deadly origins, prompting concern over the turn toward majoritarianism in Indian society.

The Babri mosque, constructed under the reign of the Mughal emperor Babar, was believed to have stood upon the birthplace of the Hindu Lord Ram, making it a point of contention between India’s Hindu and Muslim communities for nearly two centuries. Following nationwide mobilization by senior BJP leaders to reclaim the Ram Janmabhoomi (birthplace), a Hindu mob demolished the Babri Masjid on 6 December 1992. In the years since, the Ram Mandir (temple) remained a focal point of the Hindu nationalist movement, with the BJP at its forefront. A 2019 Supreme Court judgment awarding the disputed land to the Hindu applicants, finding they possessed a better title, ultimately paved the way for the temple’s construction, even as the court condemned the mosque’s demolition by the mob as an illegal act. 

The values of secularism and religious tolerance enshrined in India’s Constitution have long struggled against the realities of its demographics, where Hindus, comprising around 80% of the population, form the overwhelming majority. The gradual rise of the BJP, which views India foremost as a Hindu rashtra (nation), further increased the strain on these principles while also emboldening more radical Hindutva (Hindu nationalist) groups within the country.

Conclusions

It is not necessary to include a summary of the argument at the end of a report. ACLED reports are not academic publications and, therefore, conclusion summaries should be avoided. A report should end by explaining why the report is important (Ukraine) OR (if appropriate) provide a forward-looking perspective (South Sudan). The wrap-up part of the report can become a new section if the point being made necessitates more than one paragraph. Do not introduce new information in the final paragraphs to ensure that the overall focus and takeaway are clear throughout the report. Conclusions or summary paragraphs are only reserved for reports over 8,000 words, which is not a typical format for Analysis.

• For example - final paragraph:

The pattern of Russian targeting of civilian and energy infrastructure will have major implications for the recovery efforts in Ukraine. Outlined as one of the European Union priorities for Ukraine, reconstruction efforts are already ongoing to ensure the functioning of essential services, though limited and heavily impeded by the continuing Russian attacks. Estimated to cost hundreds of billions of US dollars and growing, continued reconstruction efforts and eventual complete recovery will have to see Ukraine’s partners overcome fatigue and aid skepticism amid ravaging Russian offensives, indiscriminate strikes on populated areas, and deliberate destructive campaigns.

Second meeting

One week before the draft submission date, the lead editor will ask for a preliminary draft and conduct a meeting with the author, and optionally, the Research analyst, and the relevant Analysis Manager to discuss the following:

• Any challenges from the side of the author, and any feedback from the editor, particularly with regard to the structure, introduction, and expectations in the outline.

• Any pending questions related to argumentation, addressed with the support of the Analysis Manager.

• Find solutions to any issues that can be implemented by the delivery date of the draft. 

• The timeline for delivering the draft to assess if it is on track or if they foresee any delays.

When the editor receives the draft, they should review it for cohesion and adherence to the outline and other feedback. At this stage, the Analysis Manager will also read through the draft to assess whether the piece answers the question that it poses. 

Before moving the draft to editorial review, ensure that the document is as “clean” as possible in terms of comments and suggested edits.

Editorial review (1 workweek)*

During the editorial review, the editor zooms in on the text and works with the author line-by-line to enhance the quality and clarity of the prose. During this phase, the editor may suggest direct edits to the text. These suggestions are done with careful consideration to not impact the overall tone or voice of the author. Rather, the editor applies these edits in a way that allows the text to flow even more naturally in the author’s tone. 

In doing so, the editor also undertakes three other tasks: 

• Apply ACLED’s extensive style guide to ensure clarity, accuracy, and consistency.

• Fact-check contextual information to ensure the information has been used in accordance with our citation guidelines.

• Clarify any language around data points and visuals (with the help of the Research Analysts).

When doing line edits, it is important to adhere to editorial norms codified in ACLED’s review etiquette. 

Proofread*

Conduct a thorough proofreading of text edited by another editor before publication or dissemination. The proofreading process should be quick. However, in cases when there have been changes to whole sentences or additions to the text past the editorial review step, the proofreader will conduct a more thorough review, which will also take more time. This is called a “proofread plus.” The decision to conduct a proofread plus will be in consultation with Analysis management based on the level of intervention/edits in the final review stage.

A proofread should check for the following: 

• ACLED style.

• Grammar.

• Verb conjugation.

• Consistent spellings (names, locations, etc.) between the visuals and the text.

• All links are correct and functional.

A proofread should not require content changes or other substantial input from the author. Any questions related to other edits should be fielded through the two other editors who worked on the report before the proofread stage. If they cannot answer the query, then the proofread editor should go to the author. The turnaround time to resolve edits from a proofread should be very quick: around 15-30 minutes depending on the length of the report. If any edit will take more than that, consider raising it with the two other editors first.

A proofread plus will additionally check the following if it was added after the editorial review, which should be flagged by the final reviewer (Head of Analysis or EA): 

• Fact check new citations added for accurate attribution and representation.

• Sentence clarity.

• Jargon.

• The language around a new data point or trend.

•  Language around a new methodological clarification.

• The titles and other text on new visuals.

The turnaround time to resolve edits from a proofread plus can be up to the next working day given the questions are likely to be related to clarity of the text.

Ready for publication

This task is assigned to the lead editor to give the final version of the report a final once-over. This includes: 

• Review and finalize the title.

• Make sure any web components are clear to the Web team (attribution/authorship, boxes, dropdowns, timelines, etc.) 

• Notify EA colleagues that the final text is ready. This includes the media specialist for that region, the members of the Social Media team, Web team, and Multimedia team assigned to the project. 

• Serve as an EA point of contact for the Web team, Social Media team, Multimedia team, or others working on products related to the report. 

• Make sure any captions are adjusted to our style if there are photos for the Multimedia or Web products. 

Editor assignments (regions and projects)

To foster close collaboration with Senior Analysts, each editor on the Publications team is assigned regions (or projects). These assignments apply to the lead editor role. Each editor will be responsible for editorial review and proofreading tasks outside of their assigned regions. These assignments may change based on the availability of the editor.

Alex Horowitz

Middle East

North America

Mozambique (including the conflict monitor)

Ethiopia

Sanet Oberholzer

Africa (except for Somalia, Sudan, Mozambique, and Ethiopia)

Latin America & the Caribbean

Europe & Central Asia

Niki Papadogiannaki

Asia-Pacific

Sudan

Somalia

If you have any questions on this guide or the editorial process generally, please contact Niki Papadogiannaki on email or Slack.

Further readings:

• Publications guide 

• Style guide 

• Glossary

• Visual style guide