APSR EXTERNAL REVIEWERS, 2013–2014

10.1017/s0003055411000499 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 105 (4) ◽

pp. 852-859

Keyword(s):

Political Science ◽

Peer Review ◽

Review Process ◽

Peer Review Process ◽

Science Review ◽

The American Political Science Review peer review process relies on the professionalism and generosity of those who contribute their time to read and evaluate the work of others. The Co-editors thank these scholars for serving as manuscript reviewers between September 1, 2010, and August 31, 2011.

APSR EXTERNAL REVIEWERS, 2008–2009

10.1017/s0003055409990256 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 103 (4) ◽

pp. 705-711

Keyword(s):

Political Science ◽

Peer Review ◽

Review Process ◽

Peer Review Process ◽

Science Review ◽

The American Political Science Review peer review process relies on the professionalism and generosity of those who contribute their time to read and evaluate the work of others. The Co-editors thank the following scholars for serving as manuscript reviewers between September 1, 2008, and August 31, 2009.

APSR EXTERNAL REVIEWERS, 2009–2010

10.1017/s0003055410000547 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 104 (4) ◽

pp. 834-842

Keyword(s):

Political Science ◽

Peer Review ◽

Review Process ◽

Peer Review Process ◽

Science Review ◽

The American Political Science Review peer review process relies on the professionalism and generosity of those who contribute their time to read and evaluate the work of others. The Co-editors thank the following scholars for serving as manuscript reviewers between September 1, 2009, and August 31, 2010.

APSR EXTERNAL REVIEWERS, 2011–2012

10.1017/s0003055412000470 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 106 (4) ◽

pp. 910-917

Keyword(s):

Political Science ◽

Peer Review ◽

Review Process ◽

Peer Review Process ◽

Science Review ◽

The American Political Science Review peer review process relies on the professionalism and generosity of those who contribute their time to read and evaluate the work of others. The Co-editors thank these scholars for serving as manuscript reviewers between September 1, 2011, and August 31, 2012.

Clearing the Pipeline? Gender and the Review Process at the American Political Science Review

10.1017/s1049096518000069 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 51 (03) ◽

pp. 629-634 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Marijke Breuning ◽

Benjamin Isaak Gross ◽

Ayal Feinberg ◽

Melissa Martinez ◽

Ramesh Sharma ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Political Science ◽

Peer Review ◽

Review Process ◽

Peer Review Process ◽

Academic Rank ◽

Science Review ◽

Prior Service ◽

Access To Data ◽

ABSTRACTIs the peer-review process at academic journals gendered? The answer to this question has important implications for the advancement of women in the political science profession. However, few studies have had access to data that can evaluate whether the peer-review process is gendered. We investigate this for papers submitted to the American Political Science Review across two editorial teams to identify trends over time. We evaluate overall differences across gender, but we also present more fine-grained data to evaluate gender differences across subfield, methodology, and submitting author’s institutional affiliation and academic rank. Furthermore, we show that prior service as a reviewer is associated with a higher acceptance rate for first-time submitters. We demonstrate that the review process is not gendered. Women’s share of submissions and acceptances has risen but remains lower than their presence in the discipline.

How International Is Political Science? Patterns of Submission and Publication in the American Political Science Review

10.1017/s1049096518000963 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 51 (4) ◽

pp. 789-798 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Marijke Breuning ◽

Ayal Feinberg ◽

Benjamin Isaak Gross ◽

Melissa Martinez ◽

Ramesh Sharma ◽

...

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Political Science ◽

Review Process ◽

Geographic Location ◽

The United States ◽

Science Review ◽

Global North ◽

American Political Science ◽

The Impact

ABSTRACTHow international in scope is publishing in political science? Previous studies have shown that the top journals primarily publish work by scholars from the United States and, to a lesser extent, other global-north countries. However, these studies used published content and could not evaluate the impact of the review process on the relative absence of international scholars in journals. This article evaluates patterns of submission and publication by US and international scholars for the American Political Science Review—one of the most selective peer-reviewed journals in the discipline. We found that scholars from the United States and other global-north countries are published approximately in proportion to submissions but that global-south scholars fare less well. We also found that scholars affiliated with prestigious universities are overrepresented, irrespective of geographic location. The article concludes with observations about the implications of these findings for efforts to internationalize the discipline.

How Gendered Is the Peer-Review Process? A Mixed-Design Analysis of Reviewer Feedback

10.1017/s1049096521000937 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 1-7

Author(s):

Thomas König ◽

Guido Ropers

Keyword(s):

Peer Review ◽

Gender Bias ◽

Review Process ◽

Peer Review Process ◽

Mixed Design ◽

Scholarly Journals ◽

Male And Female ◽

Female Authors ◽

ABSTRACT A fair peer-review process is essential for the integrity of a discipline’s scholarly standards. However, underrepresentation of scholarly groups casts doubt on fairness, which currently is raising concerns about a gender bias in the peer-review process of premier scholarly journals such as the American Political Science Review (APSR). This study examines gender differences in APSR reviewing during the period 2007–2020. Our explorative analysis suggests that male reviewers privilege male authors and female reviewers privilege female authors, whereas manuscripts reviewed by both male and female reviewers indicate less gender bias. Using within-manuscript variation to address confounding effects, we then show that manuscripts reviewed by both male and female reviewers receive a more positive evaluation by female reviewers in terms of recommendation and sentiment, but they experience a marginally longer duration. Because these effects are not specific for type of authorship, we recommend that invitations to review should reflect mixed compositions of peers, which also may avoid overburdening an underrepresented group with review workload.

American Political Science Review Editorial Board

10.1017/s1049096500059345 ◽

1995 ◽

Vol 28 (04) ◽

pp. 789

Keyword(s):

Political Science ◽

Science Review ◽

The American Political Science Review

10.2307/1945117 ◽

1926 ◽

Vol 20 (1) ◽

pp. 181-184 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Keyword(s):

Political Science ◽

Science Review ◽

A Response to Jeffrey Isaac

10.1017/s1049096510001393 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 43 (04) ◽

pp. 739

Author(s):

Gregory J. Kasza

Keyword(s):

Political Science ◽

Comparable Data ◽

Science Review ◽

Political Research ◽

The Past ◽

Regional Association ◽

The purpose of the present symposium was to evaluate Perestroika's impact. Since theAmerican Political Science Review(APSR), theAmerican Journal of Political Science(AJPS), and theJournal of Politics(JOP) were all targets of criticism in the movement, whereas other national and regional association journals such asPerspectives on PoliticsandPolitical Research Quarterlywere not, I looked for change in the former. Comparable data on the past contents of theAPSRandAJPShad already been published, so I focused my recent surveys on those two. This focus implies no judgment as to the relative prestige of these journals. They pretend to represent the discipline as a whole and are paid for by all association members, and these are sufficient reasons to address their editorial biases.