Monthly Archives: December 2015

An Editor’s Thoughts on the Peer Review Process

[Ed. note: This post is contributed by Sara McLaughlin Mitchell, Professor and Chair of the Department of Political Science at the University of Iowa.] As academics, the peer review process can be one of the most rewarding and frustrating experiences … Continue reading

Posted in Peer Review, The Discipline | 9 Comments

What is Peer Review For? Why Referees are not the Disciplinary Police

The peculiar thing about peer review is that it is central to our professional lives as political scientists, yet we tend to talk about refereeing only in the most general and anonymous terms. I have never shown an anonymous referee … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

The Multiple Routes to Credibility

Peer review — by which I mean the decision to publish research manuscripts based upon the anonymous critique of approximately three individuals — is a remarkably recent innovation. As a June, 2015 article in Times Higher Education makes clear, the … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Peering at Open Peer Review

Introduction Peer review is an essential part of the modern scientific process. Sending manuscripts for others to scrutinize is such a widespread practice in academia that its importance cannot be overstated. Since the late eighteenth century, when the Philosophical Transactions … Continue reading

Posted in Peer Review | 3 Comments

Introducing TPM’s Special Issue on Peer Review

This morning, The Political Methodologist begins publishing contributions to its special issue on peer review. Over the next month, our blog will post contributions that focus on how the peer review process influences the progress of research in political science (and … Continue reading

Posted in Editorial Message, Peer Review | 1 Comment

A Checklist Manifesto for Peer Review

The problems with peer review are increasingly recognized across the scientific community. Failures to provide timely reviews often lead to interminable delays for authors, especially when editors force authors to endure multiple rounds of review (e.g., Smith 2014). Other scholars … Continue reading

Posted in Peer Review, The Discipline | Tagged | 2 Comments