People who have worked inside national security systems often see insights long before they surface in academic literature. Through operational hearsay—the patterns, warnings, and informal knowledge that circulate through briefings, handovers, corridor conversations, and repeated workarounds—those working within public-sector institutions observe where formal processes are strained, emerging risks are being quietly managed, and where gaps between policy and lived reality exist. Treated carefully, operational hearsay can help explain why systems behave as they do, and where closer scrutiny is warranted.
Practitioners also have a first-hand view of how decisions are made within legislative, operational, and political constraints; where incentives misalign; and how risk is managed under pressure.
But experience alone isn’t enough. What matters is how that experience is translated.
What We Look For When Reviewing Interest and Proposals
Our review process reflects that focus. After signalling your interest in publishing with Nat Sec Press via our online form, we carry out an initial fit assessment. Authors whose work aligns with our remit, standards, and audience will then be invited to submit a fuller proposal for detailed review.
What we prioritise when reviewing interest and proposals includes:
1. Insight, not autobiography
We are not looking for - and do not publish - memoirs.
Strong practitioner proposals use experience as evidence, not as the point of the work. The question we ask is simple: What can a reader learn that they couldn’t get from public reporting or theory alone?
Personal experience should illuminate systems, trade-offs, and consequences—not centre the author.
2. Clear analytical purpose
The best proposals can answer, in plain language:
- What problem is this work addressing?
- Why does it matter now?
- Who needs to understand this better?
- Is the central purpose of the work clear from the outset?
Early clarity is a strength, not a constraint.
3. Grounded claims
Practitioners often have strong intuitions. We value those—but we also expect them to be evidence-backed and validated.
Good proposals distinguish between:
- What you directly observed
- What you infer
- What you can substantiate
For work based on original research, we expect clear and thorough transparency about methodology and data analysis.
Readers need to understand where claims come from and the context in which they are made.
Our editorial and review team need to be satisfied that data collection was ethical and that the analysis has been conducted appropriately and responsibly.
4. Awareness of downstream impact
National security writing does not end at publication. Analysis, examples, and framing choices can shape how material is interpreted, reused, or acted upon—often well beyond the author’s original audience or intent. We look for proposals that demonstrate an understanding of who may be affected by the work, what material is analytically necessary, and how harm, misinterpretation, or re-exposure could arise. Thoughtful consideration of downstream impact signals professional judgement and respect for the real-world consequences of publication.
We value authors who have thought seriously about:
- Who may be affected by the publication of this work
- What material is analytically necessary versus merely illustrative
- How harm, exposure, or misinterpretation could arise downstream
Careful framing is a mark of professionalism, not caution.
5. Respect for constraints
Many practitioners write under legal, ethical, or employment-related obligations.
We expect proposals to demonstrate awareness of those constraints—and to show that the author is taking responsibility for navigating them. Disclaimers are not a substitute for judgement.
6. A reader beyond the inner circle
The strongest practitioner-led books don’t just speak to peers.
They help:
- Researchers understand practice
- Policymakers see first, second, and third-order effects
- Practitioners in adjacent fields recognise shared problems
If the work only makes sense to people who have held the same role, its usefulness beyond that context is likely constrained.
Responsible Work, Real Impact
At Nat Sec Press, we look for proposals that combine insight with care—work that is analytically sound, transparent in its foundations, and attentive to how it will land beyond the page. Practitioner experience is a powerful asset when it is translated into understanding others can use, tested against evidence, and framed with awareness of real-world consequences. Writing that holds up under scrutiny is also writing that travels: it reaches beyond individual roles, contributes meaningfully to the field, and reflects the responsibility that comes with publishing in national security contexts.
If your experience helps others think better, decide better, or act more responsibly under pressure, and you're ready to write a book, signal your interest here.
