Perspectives Submission Guidelines
Review both the APSA Style Manual for Political Science and the guidelines outlined below before submitting your manuscript.
Perspectives on Politics seeks to provide a space for broad and synthetic discussion within the political science profession and between the profession and the broader scholarly and reading publics. Such discussion necessarily draws on and contributes to the scholarship published in the more specialized journals that dominate our discipline. At the same time, Perspectives seeks to promote a complementary form of broad public discussion and synergistic understanding within the profession that is essential to advancing research and promoting scholarly community.
Perspectives seeks to nurture a political science public sphere, publicizing important scholarly topics, ideas, and innovations, linking scholarly authors and readers, and promoting broad reflexive discussion among political scientists about the work that we do and why this work matters.
The following information pertains to submission and publication of articles, reflections, symposia, review essays, critical dialogues, and standard book reviews.
Manuscripts must be submitted electronically. Authors who wish to submit manuscripts for consideration at Perspectives on Politics must register with and use the online manuscript processing system called Editorial Manager. First-time users should register and create a profile. Returning users may log in and continue using their existing profile, and may update their user information at any time. See Instructions for Authors (above).
The Editorial Team at Perspectives on Politics uses a double-blind review process for all manuscripts. Please do not email the Editors with information about your manuscript asking if you should submit it for review, as this ‘un-blinds’ the review process. General inquiries may be directed to the Managing Editor, Jennifer Boylan, at firstname.lastname@example.org.
The editorial Team at Perspectives does not entertain suggestions or proposals for book reviews. Book reviews are designed and assigned by the editorial staff to avoid any conflict of interest. If you would like to have your book considered for review, please ask your publisher to send a copy of your book to the address listed below.
For questions concerning the journal as a whole, or regarding the peer review process, please contact us at email@example.com. For all correspondence related to book reviews and review essays, please contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Books for review can be sent to:
Perspectives on Politics Book Review
American Political Science Association
1527 New Hampshire Ave NW
Washington DC, 20036
Whom to Contact
General responsibility for all Perspectives editorial policies and decisions rests with Co-Editors Ana Arjona and Wendy Pearlman. Responsibility for administration of the Perspectives office, staff, and general operating procedures rests with Jennifer Boylan, Managing Editor, email@example.com.
Style, Format, References, and Endnotes
Update: As of Fall 2018, Perspectives is transitioning to a slightly adjusted style format, which now features in-text citations and explanatory endnotes. All new submissions should utilize this new style format. Readers can expect the first full issue printed with this new style in Vol. 17, Issue 3 (our September 2019 issue).
Submissions should be double-spaced, use Times New Roman 12-pt font, and have numbered pages. For more on references and endnote formatting, please refer to the style guide for Perspectives. Perspectives articles only rarely exceed 12,000 words. As explained in the “Instructions for Authors,” tables, figures, and appendix materials may be included within manuscripts or uploaded as separate files. Ultimately, should a submission be accepted, authors will be expected to work with the Perspectives offices to supply files of adequate size, quality, and format for publication. Questions or concerns in advance may be directed to the Co-Editors.
Submissions and Review
Perspectives on Politics only accepts unsolicited research articles for publication in its “Articles” section. Every article submitted to Perspectives undergoes a standard review process.
The first step in this process is a blind, in-house assessment by editorial staff aimed at determining whether the submission is of sufficient quality and an appropriate fit for the journal. Every article submitted is read and reviewed by the Co-Editors and at least one additional member of the editorial staff. The editorial office seeks to promptly consider each article within two weeks of submission, during which time each article is discussed at a weekly editorial staff meeting. At this juncture, our aim is to determine whether or not we will send the manuscript out to external referees. Many submissions do not meet this hurdle, typically because the submissions in question are not geared toward the journal’s broad readership and seem more appropriately placed in more specialized scholarly journals. In all such negative cases, authors can expect to receive word within two weeks, along with an explanation for this editorial decision. The goal of the editorial office is to treat each manuscript with the seriousness it deserves, to subject each to careful consideration, and to render editorial decisions that offer clear explanations and useful comments.
Those submissions that clear the internal review process are then sent out for external review according to a standard double-blind referee process. We typically seek four reviews, and select a diverse group of scholarly reviewers capable of approaching a manuscript from a range of pertinent scholarly perspectives. We expect that reviewers will return their reports within four to six weeks. Based on referee reports and our own careful reading of the article, the editors will then decide whether to accept a submission, reject it, or offer the author(s) the opportunity to revise and resubmit the manuscript. Authors will have access to all reviewer reports, and will receive a letter from the editors clearly explaining the decision.
Perspectives does not consider papers that are currently under review at other journals or that duplicate or overlap with parts of larger manuscripts submitted to other publishers. Please do not submit manuscripts substantially similar to those published elsewhere (including parts of a book or other larger works, or articles published in other languages). If you have any questions about whether these policies apply in your particular case, contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Authors are required to upload a minimum of three separate files:
- A separate title page that includes the full manuscript title, plus names and contact information (mailing address, telephone, fax, email address) for all credited authors in the order their names should appear, as well as each author’s academic rank and institutional affiliation. You may also include any acknowledgements or other author notes about the development of the paper (e.g., previous presentations of the research) as part of this separate title page.
- A file containing brief Author Bios.
- An anonymous digital file of your paper. This file should not include any information that identifies the authors, or any other collaborators in the work (including anyone responsible for creating tables or figures, if they are also an author/collaborator). It should not thank colleagues in notes or elsewhere in the body of the paper or mention institution names, web page addresses, or other potentially identifying information.
Although we strive to keep the review process as short as possible, commissioning prompt reviews can be a challenge and can sometimes take longer than we would like. Authors can monitor the status of their submissions through the Editorial Manager system, and we are always happy to answer questions.
When submitting manuscripts to Perspectives on Politics using Editorial Manager, be aware of the following file type restrictions: You are not permitted to submit manuscript files as PDF documents. The Editorial Manager system will build a PDF document from the Microsoft Word files you submit, which will ensure anonymity. More information is available under “Instructions for Authors..” If you have questions or concerns about this, including questions about submissions built using LaTeX, please contact the Managing Editor at email@example.com.
Beginning January 1, 2019, an ORCID iD is a requirement for corresponding authors submitting to Perspectives on Politics. The Editorial Manager system will prompt authors to attach an ORCID iD to their manuscript during the submission process. Authors can also choose to update their Editorial Manager profile with their ORCID iD in advance to save themselves time during the submission process. Including an ORCID iD with your article submission improves the discoverability of your work and creates more opportunity for recognition. By using your iD you can also benefit from having your ORCID record automatically updated when your article publishes. ORCID deposits your iD to Crossref and, provided you have given them permission to do so, they'll update your record automatically each time you publish an article. Learn more about ORCID and Crossref’s automatic update functionality.
Perspectives is a hybrid open-access journal. As such, if your authorial team has a member whose institution has a read-and-publish agreement with CUP (you can find a list of eligible institutions here), your article is eligible to publish open-access for free, should your paper be accepted for publication. To qualify, please ensure your paper is submitted on Editorial Manager by the team member at the qualifying institution (e.g. make that team member the corresponding author). However, if there is a pertinent reason why your open-access eligible team member can’t make the initial submission, you can instead change the corresponding author to your eligible team member once your paper is conditionally-accepted for publication.
Perspectives on Politics now hosts replication files for published manuscripts in our Dataverse archive.
We expect authors who make quantitative inferences in their manuscripts to submit data and log files to this Dataverse archive prior to publication. We encourage authors using qualitative data to submit data to Dataverse if this would facilitate greater research transparency and accessibility. This is not required and we recognize that reproduction standards in qualitative research are still under discussion.
Please refer to Perspectives’ Data Policy for more information.
Perspectives on Politics is APSA’s official venue for book reviews. It reviews approximately 375 books every year. Over the years, the book review in Perspectives has centered on the four main subfields: Political Theory, American Politics, Comparative Politics, and International Relations. This continues to be the basic format for most book reviews. Beyond this the journal utilizes a number of other formats for reviewing and discussing books. These formats will continue to be featured in upcoming issues. In addition, the journal will from time to time feature special thematic review sections that cross traditional subfields.
Book review submissions are now processed through the Editorial Manager on-line system. The review section does not accept unsolicited reviews, nor does it accept requests to review particular books. All reviews, review essays, and symposia are commissioned by the Associate Editor and his staff in order to avoid conflict of interest. The book review editorial staff may be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Please send all books for review to:
Perspectives on Politics Book Review
American Political Science Association
1527 New Hampshire Ave NW
Washington DC, 20036
To clarify, the review section currently features the following formats:
Review Essays address two or more books in order to consider how they illuminate a larger conceptual, political, or normative concern. Such essays typically bring a range of texts into dialogue with one another, identifying both thematic commonalities and methodological differences. Review essays vary in length, averaging about 4,000 words. Review essays are solicited by the Book Review Editor.
Symposia bring together a range of commentators to discuss a single book from multiple perspectives. Symposia are solicited and developed by the Book Review Editor. Perspectives does not accept unsolicited symposia for publication through the Editorial Manager system.
Critical Dialogues typically bring into conversation the authors of two recent books which engage similar topics or themes. Each author reviews the other’s book, and then responds to the other’s review.
Finally, Book Reviews typically address one, two, or three books. Perspectives book reviews seek to relate books under review to broader scholarly literatures and political debates.
Since Perspectives is a general readership journal of the political science discipline, it is particularly important that reviews situate the book(s) under review in the context of the theoretical debates in political science. This helps make clear the book’s relevance to the widest possible audience. While we expect reviewers to deploy their scholarly expertise in reviewing books in their subfields, we also hope that all Perspectives book reviews will be readable for and interesting to all political scientists, regardless of subfield.
Conflict of Interest Policy
- The editors will not publish an article or review essay in Perspectives, either as author or as coauthor. However, they may be called upon to do other kinds of writing for Perspectives, such as introductions for symposia.
- Editors will not assume chief responsibility for editing/developing articles submitted by their departmental colleagues or students. They may offer comments on articles by their colleagues/students; they may also solicit articles from colleagues/students or encourage colleagues/students to send manuscripts to another editor. Editors will not be the primary decision-makers when it comes to accepting or rejecting manuscripts submitted by their colleagues or students.
- Editors will not solicit review essays about books or articles that were written by their departmental colleagues or students, and they will not be primary decision-makers when it comes to accepting or rejecting such essays. They may offer comments on such essays in draft form; they also may suggest to another editor review essay ideas that include books or articles by colleagues or students.
- Rules #2 and #3 also hold for former students who obtained their PhD five or fewer years from the date of a proposal or submission.
- Rules #2 and #3 also hold for anyone who has worked as a coauthor with an editor within five years of a proposal or submission.
- Although all recommendations by external reviewers will carry a good deal of weight, the Editor-in-Chief and Associate Editor have final say as to which manuscripts are accepted for publication.
Ethics and Transparency in Research
POP takes seriously its role as a public sphere within the political science community. Such scholarly communication entails clear and transparent sharing of our research across disciplinary subfields and epistemological and methodological approaches. This, in turn, requires clear and transparent communication about the procedures that we use to collect our evidence and to ensure that our research practices are ethical. Because epistemological and methodological diversity is a strength of the political science community, this makes scholarly communication that is as transparent and accessible as possible across disciplinary subfields and approaches imperative.
Consequently, the POP expects all authors to comply with ethical and transparency obligations described in APSA's A Guide to Professional Ethics in Political Science (2012) and in Principles and Guidance for Human Subjects Research (approved by the APSA Council, April 4, 2020).
Researchers have ethical obligations to:
- ensure that research that directly engages human participants in the research process adheres to APSA’s Principles and Guidance for Human Subjects Research, and, if it does not for well-founded reasons, provide reasoned justification in scholarly publications and presentations (APSA 2012, 9);
- declare what compensation was paid (if any) to human participants and how the amount was determined;
- declare any potential or perceived conflicts of interest arising from their research (APSA 2012, 9);
- disclose sources of financial support for their research (APSA 2012, 9);
- “facilitate the evaluation of their evidence-based knowledge claims through data access, production transparency, and analytic transparency so that their work can be tested or replicated” (APSA 2012, 9) whenever legally, ethically and epistemologically possible; and
- acknowledge contributions to the research, including authorship and citations to previous work, as appropriate (APSA 2012, 9, 11).
To ensure that research published in the POP is consistent with these principles, when submitting their research for publication in POP all authors will be expected to explicitly affirm the ways in which their research practices conform to these standards. In particular, submitting authors will be asked:
- if the research draws on research directly engaging human participants, including human subjects, expert interviewees, and those exposed to experimental interventions, should answer "yes" to the screening question (even if ruled exempt from further review by the relevant ethics review board),
- discuss in the text or an appendix their ethical practices concerning human participants, particularly those included in the Principles such as consent, deception, confidentiality, harm and impact, as well as whether and how participants were compensated
- confirm compliance with APSA’s Principles and Guidance for Human Subjects Research, or if it is not in compliance, provide reasoned justification in the main text, with additional explanation provided in an appendix (included at the time of submission) if needed;
- adhere to the other ethical principles listed above, including explaining how any other real or perceived ethical issues or conflicts of interest, were addressed, including where these issues are discussed in the manuscript or an appendix as needed;
- declare any agencies, organizations, or institutions that funded the research;
- indicate where in the manuscript or an appendix the data collection procedures (if relevant) are explained; and
- confirm that, if the paper is accepted, quantitative data and related code necessary to produce the results will be made publicly available on the Perspectives Dataverse, or in cases where such documentation is not possible, provide a reasoned justification in the text or an appendix concerning the legal, ethical, or methodological constraints that prevent public, free access to the data.
This information (including any appendix that provides further details) will be shared with reviewers as appropriate, who will be invited to comment upon the extent to which the research or researchers have adequately addressed ethical and transparency obligations.
Upon conditional acceptance for publication in the POP, authors (particularly those whose work directly engages human participants in the research process) will be expected to
- affirm a set of ethical and/or transparency declarations related to these principles;
- submit an appendix that explains any exceptions or issues related to the above principles, revised if relevant in light of comments from reviewers and editors, including relevant additional documents, such as but not limited to
- ethics certificates or approvals from all organizations that approved the research and/or
- other research documentation, such as survey instruments, interview guides, or other codebooks; and
- for quantitative research, prepare and deposit in the POP Dataverse the datasets and code necessary to reproduce all results described in the text and any appendix, including in-text references to tests or statistics, tables, figures, or other illustrations, unless legal, ethical or methodological constraints prevent such data sharing.
The corresponding author will be responsible for assuring the deposit and archiving of these materials in the POP Dataverse.