The Threat of Genes: A Comment on Evan Charney's “Genes and Ideologies”

2008 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 329-335 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca J. Hannagan ◽  
Peter K. Hatemi
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Biological Sciences ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Political Behavior ◽  
American Political Science Review ◽  
Theoretical Models ◽  
Science Review ◽  
The Social ◽  
American Political Science

In his essay, “Genes and Ideologies,” Evan Charney wrangles with the question of the role of genes in the formation of political attitudes via a critique of Alford, Funk, and Hibbing's 2005 American Political Science Review article. Although critical evaluations are necessary, his essay falls short of what is required of a scientific critique on both empirical and theoretical grounds. We offer a comment on his essay and further contend that it is naïve to proceed on the assumption that a barrier exists between the biological and social sciences, such that the biological sciences have nothing to offer the social sciences. If we look beyond our discipline's current theoretical models we may find a more thorough, and not just competing, explanation of political behavior.

Are Two (or Three or Four … or Nine) Heads Better than One? Collaboration, Multidisciplinarity, and Publishability

2009 ◽  
Vol 42 (03) ◽  
pp. 507-512 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lee Sigelman
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Collaborative Research ◽  
American Political Science Review ◽  
Science Review ◽  
The Social ◽  
Per Se ◽  
American Political Science ◽  
Better Than

ABSTRACTAlthough collaborative research has become much more common in the social sciences, including political science, little is known about the consequences of collaboration. This article uses papers submitted to theAmerican Political Science Reviewto assess whether the widely acknowledged benefits of collaboration produced papers that were more likely to be accepted for publication. The results indicate that collaboration per se made little or no difference, but that the disciplinary configuration of the authors did result in differences in the success of these submissions.

A Note on the Meaning of ‘Constitution’

1982 ◽  
Vol 76 (4) ◽  
pp. 805-809 ◽  
Author(s):  
Graham Maddox
Keyword(s):  
Political Science ◽  
American Political Science Review ◽  
Political Order ◽  
Science Review ◽  
Stable Order ◽  
Role Of The State ◽  
Government Power ◽  
Narrow View ◽  
American Political Science

Professor Sartori's 1962 article on constitutionalism in the American Political Science Review was influential in the acceptance of a narrow view of the constitution. Sartori argued that constitution meant specifically limitation on government and underplayed the role of the state in establishing a political order. This article argues that there are good historical reasons for keeping a balanced view of a constitutionalism that maintains a tension between strong government, to create a secure and stable order, and limitation on government power. It therefore attempts to reaffirm McIlwain's more traditional view of the constitution as a combination of gubernaculum and jurisdictio, power and its control.

scholarly journals Notes from the Editors

2018 ◽  
Vol 112 (4) ◽  
pp. v-vi
Keyword(s):  
Political Science ◽  
American Political Science Review ◽  
Editorial Process ◽  
Scholarly Research ◽  
Science Review ◽  
Methodological Approaches ◽  
American Political Science ◽  
Over Time ◽  
Selection Of

Like other sciences, Political Science consists of subfields with, at times, different focuses, methodological approaches, and understandings of what constitutes “scholarly research of exceptional merit” that is worth being published in the American Political Science Review (APSR). In these Notes from the Editors, we want to take a closer look at subfield developments over time and provide some insights into the role of subfield classification in our editorial process. Being a cornerstone of this journal, we work hard as editors to publish a balanced selection of research from these subfields, which should theoretically mirror the submission rates we receive. Yet, despite having their own standards and principles for the evaluation of excellent manuscripts, subfield classifications often overlap in practice and change over time. Before we go into detail, we would therefore like to stress that the comparison of subfield developments, such as the number of submissions and acceptances, should always be taken with a grain of salt as their classification is neither exclusive nor complete.

Reasons for Journal Rejection: An Analysis of 600 Manuscripts

1978 ◽  
Vol 11 (04) ◽  
pp. 480-483 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles M. Bonjean ◽  
Jan Hullum
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Political Science ◽  
American Political Science Review ◽  
Rejection Rate ◽  
American Economic Review ◽  
Southern Economic Journal ◽  
The Social ◽  
Economics Journals ◽  
Economic Journal ◽  
American Political Science

The rejection of manuscripts by journals is clearly the norm in the social sciences. For example, in 1976 about 700 manuscripts were submitted to theAmerican Economic Reviewand more than 500 were rejected; theAmerican Sociological Reviewrejected more than 500 of about 600 submitted; and of the 525 manuscripts reviewed by theAmerican Political Science Review, almost 500 were rejected. To be sure, these are the top journals in their disciplines; but other respectable journals display the same pattern for that year: theSouthern Economic Journalturned down well over 400 of the 500 manuscripts received; theSocial Science Quarterlyrejected about 425 of the almost 500 received; and theAmerican Journal of Political Sciencereceived about 320 and rejected 270. That a perusal of the editorial reports of other journals would yield comparable findings is documented by a survey of 72 economics journals which collectively reported a rejection rate of 77 percent.

A Response to Jeffrey Isaac

2010 ◽  
Vol 43 (04) ◽  
pp. 739
Author(s):  
Gregory J. Kasza
Keyword(s):  
Political Science ◽  
American Political Science Review ◽  
Comparable Data ◽  
Science Review ◽  
Political Research ◽  
The Past ◽  
Regional Association ◽  
American Political Science

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document