The Politics and the Life Sciences (PLS) editorial team is pleased to present Issue 1 of Volume 44 of PLS. This issue offers a wide range of articles covering topics such as biological weapons, belief psychology and mechanisms, bioethics, biomedical research, and the dynamics of misinformation. Two articles focus on the Biological Weapons Convention, with Shearer et al. (Reference Shearer, Potter, Vahey, Munves and Gronvall2025) discussing confidence building in the convention and Sundelson et al. (Reference Sundelson, Kwik Gronvall, Ackerman, Limaye, Watson and Sell2025) examining attempts to undermine it. In a study funded in part by an Association for Politics and the Life Sciences research grant, Pisl et al. (Reference Pisl, Nefes, Simsa, Kestlerova, Kubíček, Linka and Vevera2025) explore the link between acute stress and belief in conspiracy theories. Balas and co-authors (Reference Balas, De Leo and Shaw2025) address the challenges facing biomedical research productivity, with implications for research quality and reproducibility. Von Mohr et al. (Reference von Mohr, Hackenburg, Tanzer, Fotopoulou, Campbell and Tsakiris2025) investigate the role of dogmatism in the association between trust and political leader selection. Two more articles investigate biological mechanisms and political attitudes with Jungkunz and Marx (Reference Jungkunz and Marx2025) discussing moderators of genetic predispositions towards political interest and Bruce et al. (Reference Bruce, Crespi, Hayes, Lagoudakis, Lusk, Schreiber and Wu2025) assessing how brain activations linked to political partisanship can vary based on food purchases. The issue also includes an argument by Gurcan (Reference Gurcan2025) regarding ethical considerations surrounding the use of genetics in reproductive choices. Finally, the letter from Simeone et al. (Reference Simeone, Roschke and Walker2025) applies principles of evolutionary biology to analyze the spread of misinformation.
Thank you to all the contributors and reviewers for their efforts on both issues in 2024. We extend our deepest gratitude to all contributors who entrusted us with their hard work. We also thank the reviewers who devoted substantial time and energy to providing guidance on manuscripts. These colleagues not only advised the editorial team but also provided constructive comments to authors. Their expertise and encouragement were invaluable in enhancing the insightfulness and significance of the research submitted to PLS. The editorial team sincerely thanks the 50 scholars appearing in Table 1, who provided peer reviews in 2024:
Table 1. 2024 reviewers
* PLS Editorial Board Member
As Table 1 shows, a notable number of PLS Editorial Board members provided reviews of manuscripts in 2024. We are privileged to have an Editorial Board that contributes so significantly to the journal. Thank you, Editorial Board. We especially extend our thanks to the following colleagues whose terms on the Editorial Board concluded in 2024: Robert Gilbert, Kobi Leins, and Janna Merrick. We deeply appreciate their support and advice, which will be sorely missed. Conversely, we are pleased to welcome six new members to the Editorial Board, each beginning a three-year term: Craig Albert from Augusta University, specializing in biosecurity; Bert Bakker from the University of Amsterdam, specializing in political psychology; Mitch Brown from the University of Arkansas, specializing in evolutionary psychology; Adam Feltz from the University of Oklahoma, specializing in applied ethics; Gijs Schumacher from the University of Amsterdam, specializing in political psychology; and Cat Worsnop from the University of Maryland-College Park, specializing in global health. We look forward to collaborating with these distinguished scholars. For more information on the Editorial Board, please visit the journal’s Cambridge Core website at https://cambridge.org/pls under Journal Information.
In 2024, PLS completed its 43rd year of publication. Scholars submitted original manuscripts from 19 countries across five regions: Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, and South America. Thirty-six percent were from corresponding authors at U.S. institutions, while 34 percent were from European institutions. The editorial team reduced the average time to the first decision on manuscripts to 39 days, a decrease of about six days from 2023. The journal accepted 29 percent of all submissions, but acceptance rates varied by the type of manuscript. Notably, the acceptance rates for Research Articles and Research Notes were lower. Among the accepted Research Articles and Research Notes, 80 percent were published as Open Access at no additional cost to the authors, and 60 percent received an open science badge, recognizing open science practices for open data, open materials, and/or pre-registration.
Table 2 indicates a sustained increase in the visibility and impact of PLS in 2024. The cumulative downloads from Cambridge Core, JSTOR, and ProQuest surpassed 107,000 for the year, continuing a trend of approximately 100,000 downloads annually since 2021. This represents a significant rise from approximately 60,000 downloads recorded in both 2018 and 2019. Notably, these numbers exclude downloads from EBSCO and BioOne, suggesting that the actual total may be substantially higher.
Table 2. Downloads and CiteScore results
SOURCE CiteScore: https://www.scopus.com/sourceid/23442;* most recent data—data not available yet
Table 2 also presents the journal’s CiteScore, a citation-based metric derived from Scopus data, which continued to rise in 2024, reaching 3.4. This rise underscores the journal’s growing academic influence but also reflects its enhanced standing within its peer groups, as evidenced by increasing category ranks.
Table 3 reports the 10 most cited articles published in PLS since 2020, according to Google Scholar. Once again, it is fair to say that “PLS articles are noticed and cited.”
Table 3. Ten most cited articles since 2020
Source: Google Scholar
I want to especially thank Associate Editor Mike Grillo, Associate Editor for Letters Asheley Lundrum, and Associate Editor for Methods and Replication Rubie Eubanks. The contributions of Mike, Asheley, and Rubie are vital to the journal. Their expertise and diligent efforts ensure the high quality and integrity of our publication process and, ultimately, the journal’s success. I deeply appreciate their dedication and hard work. Thank you, Mike, Asheley, and Rubie.
Lastly, the success of PLS is made possible by the generous support and goodwill of multiple partners. Beyond our contributors, reviewers, and Editorial Board, we wish to express our gratitude to Cambridge University Press, our publisher, and the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences, our scholarly home. Their support of PLS and the broader scientific community is unwavering and appreciated.
AI Disclosure
The author conceptualized this manuscript and prepared an initial draft using Microsoft Word, refined the manuscript with the aid of AI and AI-assisted technologies (i.e., ChatGPT, notebooklm.com, and Grammarly), then further edited the manuscript to reflect the author’s intended message. The author acknowledges and assumes responsibility for all errors and omissions.
