Review the APSA Style Manual for Political Science, the Perspectives on Politics submission guidelines, and the guidelines outlined below before submitting your manuscript.
The following information pertains to submission and publication of articles, reflections, and book review material.
Whom to Contact
General responsibility for all Perspectives editorial policies and decisions rests with Ana Arjona and Wendy Pearlman, Co-Editors-in-Chief. Responsibility for administration of the Perspectives office, staff, and general operating procedures rests with Jennifer Boylan, Managing Editor, [email protected].
Style, Format, References, and Endnotes
Update: As of Fall 2018, Perspectives transitioned to a slightly adjusted style format, which now features in-text citations and explanatory endnotes. The first full issue published with this new style was Vol. 17, Issue 3 (our September 2019 issue). All new submissions should utilize this new style format.
As of August 2023, Perspectives is no longer counting the references section as part of the word count for articles and reflections. Articles must be no longer than 12,000 words and reflections should be 6,000 to 10,000 words. This word count includes the main body of the text, as well as notes and in-text citations. It does not include the title page, abstract, bibliography, tables, figures, mathematical notations, online appendices or other supporting information.
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. As explained in the “Instructions for Authors,” tables, figures, and appendix materials may be included within manuscripts or uploaded as separate files. 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 Managing Editor.
ORCID Identifier
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 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 will update your record each time you publish an article. Learn more about ORCID and Crossref’s automatic update functionality.
Dataverse
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.
Submission Types
The below information provides a summary of expectations for each of the different submission types considered for publication at Perspectives.
Research Articles
Contributions to the “Articles” section generally follow the traditional conventions for academic journal articles. Perspectives articles are typically works of original research or creative syntheses of such works. Drawing on authors’ scholarly expertise, they engage theoretical literatures to address important political issues or phenomena. In keeping with the journal’s distinctive mission, these articles should be well-written and addressed to a broad readership of political scientists, social scientists more generally, civic leaders, and policymakers. There is no one-size-fits-all model for Perspectives articles, but articles should represent high-end research that is broader and more integrative than the research published by more specialized disciplinary and sub-disciplinary journals. As part of the Editorial Manager submission process, we ask that all prospective authors submit a brief explanation of why they have chosen to submit their work to Perspectives and how it is consistent with the distinctive mission and audience of our journal.
Article submissions should be between 8,000 to 12,000 words. This word count includes the main body of the text, as well as notes and in-text citations. It does not include the title page, abstract, bibliography, tables, figures, mathematical notations, online appendices, or other supporting information. Authors may submit their manuscripts according to whatever standardized citation and note style they choose, as long as there is a standalone section for references or works cited. Submissions that deviate substantially from the word count expectations will be sent back to authors without editorial review. In some cases, if a research article submission’s word count is below 8,000 words, our editorial team may ask you to reconsider submitting the manuscript as a Reflection (see below). Other concerns or omissions, such as the absence of a works cited section or missing appendix information, may also lead to the submission being sent back to authors to resolve these issues prior to editorial review.
Most of the journal’s space is devoted to individual articles (whether individually written or co-authored) chosen through unsolicited submission and peer review. The editorial team might also experiment with calls for papers on topics of broad interest to the discipline. Those opportunities will be broadly advertised, open to all potential authors, and follow normal submission procedures. The journal is not opposed to articles jointly submitted on a common theme, but each submission will be evaluated individually and will have to pass through the peer review system on its own merits.
Reflections
The journal has long included an article type called “Reflections.” Reflection essays are contemplative, provocative, or programmatic essays that address important political science questions and controversies in interesting ways. Within these submissions, authors might offer short, rigorous analyses of a political phenomenon or policy problem; engage scholarly arguments to highlight methodological or substantive disagreements; put forth new perspectives, concepts, methods, research agendas, or descriptive analyses; or provide insightful discussion of other issues of importance for politics and political science. It is important to emphasize that Reflections are not akin to commentaries published in nonacademic outlets; they are academic works that are held to Perspectives’ high standards of scholarly significance, are sent out for peer review, and must pass peer review. They are not lesser than traditional research articles, but different. Reflections offer a space where scholars make important innovations and interventions, but can do so without the format, structure, or length standard in research articles. For example, these pieces might forego the full-fledged research design requisite for hypothesis testing. However, they should make clear contributions to political science and/or political science’s engagement in the public sphere.
Each Reflection should provide the information necessary for readers to evaluate the validity of its contribution, even if it does not intend to fully elaborate or test a causal theory. If the Reflection advances empirical claims, it should provide convincing evidentiary support for those claims and adequate description of the methodology or reasoning underpinning them. If the Reflection introduces a new conceptual framework, challenges existing theoretical consensus, or uncovers an overlooked intellectual history, it should articulate how it challenges or reshapes the existing discussion or serves as an agenda-setting piece that inspires future inquiries.
Reflection essays range from 6,000-10,000 words. This word count includes the main body of the text, as well as notes and in-text citations. It does not include the title page, abstract, references/works cited section, tables, figures, mathematical notations, online appendices, or other supporting information. Authors may submit their manuscripts according to whatever standardized citation and note style they choose, as long as there is a standalone section for references or works cited. Submissions that deviate substantially from the word count expectations will be sent back to authors without editorial review. Other concerns or omissions, such as the absence of a works cited section or missing appendix information, may also lead to the submission being sent back to authors to resolve these issues prior to editorial review.
Book Reviews
Perspectives on Politics is APSA’s official venue for book reviews. Over the years, the book reviews in Perspectives have centered on the four main subfields of Political Theory, American Politics, Comparative Politics, and International Relations. Since Perspectives has a wide readership in political science, reviewers are encouraged to situate book(s) under review within larger disciplinary debates. While we expect reviewers to deploy their scholarly expertise in reviewing books in their subfields, Perspectives book reviews should also engage a more general audience of political scientists.
Book review submissions are processed through the Editorial Manager online system. The review section does not accept unsolicited reviews or requests to review particular books. To avoid conflicts of interest, all reviews, review essays, and symposia are commissioned by the Book Review editors and their staff.
Our updated Standard Book Review Guidelines is available here.
The journal utilizes the following formats for reviewing and discussing books:
Book Reviews address one, two, or three books. Perspectives book reviews seek to relate books under review to broader scholarly literatures and political debates.
Critical Dialogues typically bring into conversation the authors of two recent books that engage similar topics or themes. Each author reviews the other’s book and then responds to the other’s review.
Review Essays look at two or more books 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.
Symposia bring together a range of commentators to discuss a single book from multiple perspectives. As with the other book review formats, symposia are solicited and developed by the Book Review editors.
Please send all books for review to:
Perspectives on Politics Book Review
American Political Science Association
1527 New Hampshire Ave NW
Washington DC, 20036
Please note: Only books sent to the APSA office, and not to the editors directly, will be considered for review.
Ethics and Transparency in Research
Perspectives 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 imperative scholarly communication that is as transparent and accessible as possible across disciplinary subfields and approaches.
Consequently, Perspectives 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 on April 4, 2020 and then made a part of APSA's 2022 A Guide to Professional Ethics).
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).
During the 2023-2024 academic year, the Editors-in-Chief will be developing a new set of guidelines for authors and reviewers that build on those ethics procedures currently implemented at the American Political Science Review. We will post those new guidelines here shortly.