Category Archives: Peer Review

Acceptance rates and the aesthetics of peer review

Based on the contributions to The Political Methodologist‘s special issue on peer review, it seems that many political scientists are not happy with the kind of feedback they receive from the peer review process. A theme seems to be that … Continue reading

Posted in Peer Review | Leave a comment

Offering (constructive) criticism when reviewing (experimental) research

by: Yanna Krupnikov and Adam Seth Levine No research manuscript is perfect, and indeed peer reviews can often read like a laundry list of flaws. Some of the flaws are minor and can be easily eliminated by an additional analysis … Continue reading

Posted in Peer Review | 1 Comment

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 | 8 Comments

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