Usually not as written. An IA is short, built to a marking rubric, and typically rests on a sample too small to support a published claim. Converting one means scaling up the data, rewriting the methods so someone could repeat it, and deleting everything written for the examiner. That is real work, and it is worth it in one specific case.
Students ask this because the IA is the first thing they write that looks like research. It is the right instinct and usually the wrong document.
Why an IA does not publish as written
Three obstacles, in descending order of difficulty.
Sample size. This is the one you cannot write around. A biology IA with five trials, or a psychology IA surveying twenty classmates, does not support a claim a reviewer would accept. The IB's criteria reward appropriate method and honest analysis at the scale a school student can manage; a journal asks whether the finding is likely to be real. Those are different bars.
Shape. An IA is written for a rubric. It contains sections that exist because criteria exist — personal engagement, evaluation framed as reflection, explicit signposting of method choices to the examiner. A journal paper is written for a reader who wants to know what you found and whether to believe it. Much of what earns marks in an IA is noise in a paper.
Length. IAs are short by design. A journal article wants a methods section detailed enough to repeat, and that usually means more words than your IA allocated to method in total.
What conversion actually involves
Four steps, and only the last is quick.
| Step | What it means | Effort |
|---|---|---|
| Scale the data | More trials, more respondents, or move to a public dataset | Weeks to months |
| Rewrite the methods | Detailed enough for someone to repeat exactly | Days |
| Strip the rubric | Delete personal engagement, reflection, examiner signposting | Hours |
| Rebuild the argument | Conclusion sized to what the evidence supports | Days |
The first step is the project. If your IA used twenty classmates and you move to a national survey with four thousand respondents, you have not converted anything — you have started a new study using the same question. Which is fine, and worth knowing, because it tells you the honest timeline.
For subjects where scaling means equipment, there is a hard constraint: most universities bar under-eighteens from BSL-2 agents, radioactive materials and animal work, and require constant direct supervision. A chemistry IA you cannot scale at school is not going to become scalable by email.
Which subjects convert best
The ones where more data is free.
Converts well: economics, geography, psychology using secondary data, computer science, mathematics, global politics. In all of these you can swap a classroom-sized sample for a national one at no cost. Our list of free datasets covers twenty-two sources; swapping your IA's variables into one of them is often a weekend's work.
Converts badly: the experimental sciences, where scaling means lab access you are unlikely to get, and any IA built around a specific local intervention you cannot repeat.
A useful middle route: keep your IA's question and move it to the computational corner of your subject. A biology IA about an organism becomes an epidemiological question about a population. You keep what you were curious about and lose the bench.
Where you would send it
Depends what it becomes.
| If the converted work is | Venue | Cost |
|---|---|---|
| Original science with new data | Journal of Emerging Investigators | $49 at submission, nothing after |
| Original science, no budget | NHSJS | Free |
| A synthesis or literature review | NHSJS or Columbia Junior Science Journal | Free |
That last row matters more than students expect. Most student research journals reject literature reviews outright, and it is the commonest reason a capable submission fails. Two venues take them, and knowing that before you convert saves a wasted cycle.
What to avoid: anywhere selling expedited review. The joint COPE, DOAJ, OASPA and WAME principles state at Principle 13 that "author fees or waiver status should not influence editorial decision making," and a publication from a venue that sells speed reads differently to anyone who knows the field. Think.Check.Submit. is the checklist to run before committing.
Our complete guide to publishing covers the whole route, and what happens after you submit covers the months that follow.
The timing problem
Do not submit while the IA is still being assessed.
Check your school's academic honesty position before doing anything, and in any case wait until your IB assessment is complete. Publishing coursework that is still inside the assessment cycle creates a category of problem that is entirely avoidable by waiting a few months. There is no deadline pressure that justifies it.
When it is actually worth doing
One case, and it is narrower than the enthusiasm suggests.
Worth it: the IA raised a question you genuinely want to pursue, you were frustrated by the scale you were forced to work at, and you would be interested in the answer even if nobody ever published it. That student should convert, and will probably enjoy it.
Not worth it: you want a publication, and the IA is the nearest thing you have written. The conversion work is roughly equivalent to starting a fresh project, so you may as well start one on a question you actually chose rather than one the IB rubric shaped.
It is also worth being realistic about what a publication does. Caltech reports that 42% of admitted students submitted research and routes independent work to a portfolio; Yale asks applicants to state "your specific contributions if the work was done in collaboration with others." Beyond those, almost nothing is published about how a student publication is weighted. A paper you can defend under questioning is the thing that holds up, published or not.
If you would rather start fresh
Often the better call, and it costs you nothing you have already spent.
Your IA taught you how to design a method, how long analysis takes, and which parts of the process you find tedious. That is worth more than the document. Starting a new project with a question chosen for its own sake — using the process in how to build a question worth publishing — usually produces better work than reverse-engineering a rubric-shaped one.
The same reasoning applies to the Extended Essay and the EPQ, both of which face the same conversion problem.
Where we fit
The Oxford Centre for Advanced Research pairs students with PhD candidates and early-career researchers at Oxford, Cambridge, other leading UK universities and Ivy League institutions. The Oxford Publication Fellowship is £3,400, roughly $4,400, and is built around getting a project to submission standard.
We submit to the Oxford Journal of Student Scholarship, the Journal of Research High School and Vanderbilt's Young Scientist Journal, through standard review. All three reject student work, ours included.
Most of the IA conversions we see turn into new projects within three sessions, because the honest assessment of the original is that the sample will not carry it. We would rather say that at the start than four months in.
The test before you commit
Look at your IA's sample size and ask whether you would believe the conclusion if a stranger showed it to you.
If yes, convert it. If no, you have your answer about what the project actually needs — and it is not editing.
Frequently asked questions
Can an IB Internal Assessment be published?
Not as written, in almost every case. The three obstacles are length, shape and sample size. It is shorter than a journal paper, structured around a marking rubric rather than a reader, and usually rests on data gathered in a few lessons. Converting one is a rewrite with new data, not a reformat.
What is the biggest obstacle?
Sample size, usually. A biology IA with five trials or a psychology IA with twenty classmates will not support a claim a reviewer would accept. This is the one problem you cannot write your way around — it has to be fixed by collecting more data or by switching to a larger public dataset.
Which subjects convert best?
The ones where you can scale the data without equipment. Economics, geography, psychology using secondary data, computer science, and maths. The hardest are the experimental sciences, because scaling means lab access that under-eighteens are generally barred from having.
Can I submit my IA while I am still being assessed on it?
Do not. Check your school's academic honesty position first, and in any case submit only after your IB assessment is complete. Publishing a piece of coursework still in the assessment cycle creates problems that are entirely avoidable by waiting a few months.
Where would I submit it?
If you scale it into original research, the Journal of Emerging Investigators for sciences, or NHSJS. If it stays a synthesis, NHSJS and the Columbia Junior Science Journal both accept literature reviews, which most student journals do not. Read the scope rules before you start converting.
Is it worth doing?
In one case: you genuinely want to continue the question, and the IA revealed something you want to pursue properly. Converting an IA purely to have a publication is a poor use of several months. The work is the same as starting a fresh project, so start fresh unless the question itself pulls you.