The Political Methodologist is calling for papers for a special issue of TPM concerning the process of peer review in political science!
Peer review is something that every political scientist in the field will be subject to and asked to perform, but is a task for which almost no one receives formal training. Although some helpful guidelines exist in the literature, I believe there is still considerable heterogeneity in how people think about the peer review process and that the community would benefit from discussing these views. Moreover, new developments in the discipline raise new questions about the review process (e.g., the degree to which journals and reviewers have a responsibility to ensure replicability and reproducibility).
A wide variety of topics would fit well into this special issue, including (but not exclusive to):
- how one should write a review, including and especially what constitute fair criteria for evaluation, and what criteria are unfair
- what is the reviewer’s role in the process: Quality Assurance? Error Checking? Critical Commentary? or what?
- how one should respond to a review when invited to revise and resubmit (or rejected)
- the role that peer review should play in error checking / replication / verification
- the “larger view” of how peer review does or should contribute to (political) science
- the role of editorial discretion in the process, and how editors should regard reviews
Submissions should be between 2000-4000 words (although shorter submissions will also be considered), and should be sent to email@example.com by December 1, 2015. Accepted articles will be featured on our blog, and also in the print edition of TPM.
If you’re interested in contributing to the special issue and would like to talk about prospective contributions before writing/submitting, please feel free to contact me (firstname.lastname@example.org).