Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:07:02.276Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response to Symposium Reviewers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 December 2016

Evan S. Lieberman
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This response to Prof. Lieberman’s essay questions its analogy between “biomedical research” and the academic discipline of political science. Focused on the disanalogy of scope and scale between the two, it takes issue not with the “criterial framework” he offers, but with the quality of argumentation that leads us there. Supplementing the essay’s impressionistic account of editorial practice with evidence drawn from the New England Journal of Medicine and the publishing history of APSA journals since the 1960s, I suggest that the issue here is not simply editorial virtue and professional norms, but differences in the material and institutional bases of the journals’ alternative publication models.

Type
Reflections Symposium
Information
Perspectives on Politics , Volume 14 , Issue 4 , December 2016 , pp. 1080 - 1082
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adamsson Eryd, Samuel, et al. . 2016. “Blood Pressure and Complications in Individuals with Type 2 Diabetes and No Previous Cardiovascular Disease: National Population Based Cohort Study.” BMJ, August 4, 354.Google Scholar