INTRODUCTION TO THE CENTENNIAL ISSUE

This issue completes the one-hundredth volume of the Review, the inaugural issue of which was published in November 1906. To mark this occasion, two years ago we began planning a centennial observance on the theme of “the evolution of political science.” My collaborator in this project, as the Co-Editor of what evolved into an entire issue of the Review, has been Editorial Board member M. Elizabeth Sanders, who joined me in overseeing the review and selection processes.

In the 1960s, there was much talk, in the program in which I was then a graduate student, about developing “a theory of the political.” That project filled me with wonder. For one thing, I wondered what noun the adjective “political” was supposed to be modifying: the political what? For another, I wondered at the sheer arrogance of the idea that a single theory could possibly encompass and illuminate the infinitely varied phenomena that “the political” subsumes.

That four-decade-old reaction to the political science equivalent of the physicist's “theory of everything” lives on in the cover graphic of this issue. To represent the evolution of political science, many images initially came to mind. Eventually, the particular image that appears on the cover won out. One reason it did was that a jigsaw puzzle, like political science, is made up of a large number of separate pieces. Ours is a discipline of many parts. Another reason was that the separate parts of political science, like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, did not come preassembled. Our discipline was built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. Still, doubt remained about the appropriateness of jigsaw puzzle imagery, which could imply that all the separate pieces of political science should be expected (at least eventually—“a theory of the political”) to fit together in a neat and tidy package and to reveal the whole picture. But look more closely at the particular jigsaw puzzle that adorns our cover and you will see that some of the pieces have been jammed together in ways that obviously don't fit, that significant gaps must still be filled in, that the pieces that are as yet unused may not fit at all, and that if the puzzle were eventually completed, what it says would constitute only a small part of a much larger story. All these features of this particular jigsaw puzzle combine to make it an especially appropriate image for the cover of the Review's centennial issue.

THE REVIEW,'S TABLE OF CONTENTS AS A RUNNING RECORD OF THE EVOLUTION OF THE DISCIPLINE

In preparing my essay “The Coevolution of American Political Science and the American Political Science Review” for this issue, I had numerous occasions to refer to the tables of contents of the back issues of the Review. From that endeavor I gained a keen appreciation of how much could be learned about the evolution of the discipline without reading so much as a single article, simply by monitoring the table of contents of each issue.

Every table of contents has two main elements: the titles of the articles and the names of the authors. Therein lies a tale—or, more accurately, several tales.

Over the years, the Review has published some articles with remarkably cryptic titles (e.g., “Finland” and “Pan-Turanism”) and others whose titles leave little to the imagination (e.g., “Explaining Presidential Popularity: How Ad Hoc Theorizing, Misplaced Emphasis, and Insufficient Care in Measuring One's Variables Refuted Common Sense and Led Conventional Wisdom Down the Path of Anomalies” and “Political Corruption in America: A Search for Definitions and a Theory, or If Political Corruption Is in the Mainstream of American Politics Why Is it Not in the Mainstream of American Politics Research?”). It may be thought that such differences reflect nothing more momentous than the idiosyncrasies of authorial taste or the limits of editorial indulgence, but both casual (Becker 2003) and systematic titrologists (e.g., Buxton and Meadows, 1977; Whissell 2004) think there is more to it than that. In a wide array of scholarly fields, article titles have gotten longer and longer, and this phenomenon is taken seriously as an indicator of the evolutionary movement from generality to specificity as scholarly fields mature (Rouquette 1975–76). Whissell provides an apt example: “A single article written on the topic of dogmatism might be entitled ‘A study of dogmatism,’ but 10 articles written on the same topic must each be described by longer (and more specific) titles to be distinguished from one another, e.g., ‘A study of dogmatism: sex differences in university students’” (2004).

Indicatively, whereas “Finland” and “Pan-Turanism” graced the Review's fourth and eleventh volumes, respectively, the articles with the prodigious titles noted in the preceding paragraph both appeared in its eighth decade. More generally, as can be seen in Figure 1, the length of article titles in the Review has followed the same course as that of titles in several other disciplines. From the Review's first through its tenth decade, the mean number of words per title rose by 41%.

Mean Length of Article Titles in the Review by Decade.

The same trend toward specification has cropped up in the increasing use of punctuation marks—commas and colons—in titles. (See Figure 2.) With tongue only partially in cheek, Dillon identified “titular colonocity” as “a discriminant of scholarly quality” (1981a,b, 1982) so it should occasion no great surprise that the titles of the Review's early articles were rarely punctuated and that colons in particular were rare. Commas eventually began appearing fairly regularly, a trend Howard Becker attributes to the eagerness of authors to say to prospective readers, “‘Look at my variables! Look at my concepts! Look at my historical period! Look at my data!’ Not knowing what the passing reader might be looking for, the best strategy is to put everything that might be of interest in the title, just in case” (2003, v). Later, in the 1950s and 1960s, the colon displaced the comma as the political scientist's punctuation mark of choice, attractive to authors because it enabled them to meld breadth (the main title) with specificity (the postcolonial subtitle). In more recent decades, both of these punctuation marks achieved such popularity that by the end of the Review's first century it was the rare title that failed to embrace one or the other of them; we are now, it would seem, in a state of titular punctuated equilibrium.

Commas and Colons in Article Titles in the Review by Decade.

This trend toward specification could be taken as evidence that political science research has, as critics have often charged, become “more and more about less and less” (Corwin 1929, 569). However, the imagery evoked by the titles of articles in the Review actually has grown less concrete and more abstract.¹

The decade-by-decade abstractness scores were derived from the Regressive Imagery dictionary of McKenzie's (1996) Alexis computer program; to calculate these scores, for each decade I subtracted the mean percentage of title words classified as “concrete” from the mean percentage classified as “abstract.” The overall upward trend shown in Figure 3 is similar to results reported by Hogenraad, Bestgen, and Durieux (1992) for two psychology journals, but not to Whissell's (2004) findings for a third psychology journal.

(See Figure 3.) The point is not that articles published in the Review in recent decades have been theoretically and conceptually rich in an absolute sense, but merely that by comparison to the work that it published in its early volumes, the articles of the last few decades—or at least their titles—have been veritably awash in ideas. In any event, to the extent that the trend has been away from the concrete and toward the abstract, it runs counter to the notion of a narrowing of analytical focus over the long run.

Abstractness of Article Titles in the Review by Decade.

More conventional indications of long-term trends in the discipline can be derived from the other main component of the table of contents: the names of the authors. One such measure is the proportion of co-authored articles. The dramatic growth of collaborative research in the social sciences in general (Endersby 1996; Laband and Tollison 2000; Moody 2004) and in political science in particular (Baum, Griffiths, Matthews, and Schrruble 1976; De Maio and Kushner 1981; Fisher, Cobane, Vander Ven, and Cullen 1998) is an oft-told tale, so the trend depicted in Figure 4 serves primarily as a reminder and extension of what has already been reported elsewhere. Multiple authorship remained a rarity in the Review until it entered a takeoff phase in the mid- to late 1950s and early 1960s. By the mid-1970s, roughly one article in three was co-authored, and the turn of the twenty-first century found the proportion hovering in the vicinity of one in two. Thus, although the trend shown in Figure 4 and similar results reported in other studies fall short of validating the claim that “multiple authorship is becoming the norm within political science” (Fisher et al. 1998, 854), collaboration has become an increasingly widespread practice. Because this trend has sprung from such sources as the growth of specialization, the availability of funding to support research teams, and the rise of quantification, it has not diffused equally into all corners of the discipline; single-authorship still dominates, for example, among political theorists and comparativists. Although the broader implications of the trend toward co-authorship are still not entirely clear, there are some indications that the quality of research has improved because of it (Presser 1980).

Co-authorship of Articles in the Review by Volume.

Arraying the names of the authors over time also illuminates another long-term trend. Over the past century, and especially during the last three decades, the gender composition of the political science profession in the United States underwent marked change. During the 1960s, women occupied only about one political science faculty position in twenty, but by the 1990s the proportion had risen to about one in four (Sarkees and McGlen 1999; Young 1995). As the discipline became less of a male preserve, so did research activity; for example, only 8% of the papers presented at the 1971 annual APSA meeting were by women, but the counterpart figure for 2000 was 28% (Gruberg 2000). Notwithstanding some occasional breakthroughs into its pages, through the mid-1960s women maintained only a shadow presence in the Review (see also Hajjar, Bowman, and Richard 1975, 369). Then, propelled by the changing gender composition of the discipline and the growth of collaborative research in general and cross-gender collaboration in particular,²

Fisher et al. reported that more than half of the articles by women in leading political science journals were products of collaborations between women and men(1998, p. 854).

the proportion of authors of articles in the Review who were women began to rise. From the mid-1980s through the mid-1990s, about one author in six was a woman. (See Figure 5.)

Co-authorship of Articles in the Review, by Volume.

After noting that this proportion lagged behind those of other political science journals, Young speculated that “The large group of women who are still at the lower academic tiers may be targeting lower status journals because they are still learning their craft and may be hesitant to submit their work to the top ranking journal. As more women enter the upper tiers of academe and as they become more grafted into major research institutions, APSR will likely have more articles with female authors” (1995, 526). That speculation was borne out over the ensuing decade, during which about one author in four was a woman—still a few percentage points below the female presence in the discipline as a whole.

THE “EVOLUTION OF POLITICAL SCIENCE” ESSAYS³

Thanks are due to Elizabeth Franker for her help in drafting this section.

Only a glance at the table of contents will be needed to establish that this issue is devoted primarily to a jumbo assortment of essays about the evolution of political science. During 2004–2005, we circulated a call for expressions of interest in submitting papers on this theme for a special section of the centennial issue. We specified that completed papers would have to be brief, at least by the Review's normal standards, so that we could accommodate the large and diverse array of perspectives on the evolution of the discipline that we hoped to represent. We were more than a little concerned that our invitation might attract few takers, especially because we were offering no guarantee that any submitted paper would actually be published. Reflecting this uncertainty, we referred to our project as a thematic section of this issue rather than as a thematic issue, leaving ourselves an out in case we received few submissions. As it turned out, we need not have worried, for we received many more expressions of interest than we had dreamed possible (around 100 in all). Following the lead of our sister publication, Perspectives on Politics, we provided extensive reactions to each pre-proposal or proposal that we received, conveying feedback to every author about whether a project seemed promising and offering detailed advice about how it might be developed.

Every paper that was ultimately submitted underwent a full-scale peer-review process during the spring of 2006. Based on the reviewers' comments and recommendations and on our own assessments, we invited the authors of a subset of these papers to revise them for further consideration. We ultimately accepted 24 papers as the core of this issue.

As we had hoped they would, these essays represent a wide array of perspectives on the evolution of political science. Even so, many important topics are unrepresented here and others may be overrepresented. That was inevitable, given space limitations, our approach of issuing a general call for papers on a broad theme rather than assigning authors of our choosing to address topics that we specified, and the heterogeneous character of our discipline. Thus, the assembled essays constitute a patchwork rather than a comprehensive portrait of the evolution of the discipline. Still, we are confident that every reader of the Review will find much of interest in these essays, and we are hopeful that our readers' knowledge and understanding of political science will be significantly improved as a consequence.

Preceding these 24 essays is my own consideration of “The Coevolution of American Political Science and the American Political Science Review.” Based in large part on a survey of the research articles that have appeared in the Review over the course of its century-long existence, this essay is intended primarily as a conversation starter and as a stage setter for the more specifically focused essays that follow it.

The assumption underlying our call for papers was that fostering greater awareness of where the discipline has been would promote new insight into where it currently stands and where it is likely to go. And what better place to start than at the beginning—at least at the beginning of the organized profession of political science in the United States? In “The Founding of the American Political Science Association: Discipline, Profession, Political Theory, and Politics,” John G. Gunnell suggests that the founders of the APSA launched a rebellion when they sought to disestablish the then-dominant voices in the discipline by spearheading a new journal. Of course, the idea of the Review as a revolutionary rather than counter-revolutionary force may seem ironic in an era in which the Review is one of the most conspicuous manifestations of “mainstream” political science. In what should be read as a companion piece to Gunnell's essay, John S. Dryzek argues in “Revolutions Without Enemies: Transformations in Political Science” that the most successful internal attempts to alter the theoretical and methodological foundations of political science have been facilitated by the absence of serious dissent. Approaching the same subject matter from a different perspective, Mark Blyth devotes “Great Punctuations: Prediction, Randomness, and the Evolution of Comparative Political Science” to outlining a process of conceptual and theoretical development marked by rare times when prevailing wisdom has fallen victim to real-world events. Blyth is skeptical about whether the end product is progress; rather, he contends that like the drunkard searching for his lost keys under a streetlight because that is where the light is, political scientists have focused so much of their attention on the middle of the bell curve that they have failed to see the action in the tails of the distribution of events. Much farther out in the critical region of the distribution of assessments of the political science is Michael Parenti's provocative interpretation of establishmentarian biases from the earliest times through the present against scholars whose backgrounds or outlooks have positioned them outside the mainstream.

Whereas Parenti focuses on factors like social background, political ideology, and theoretical and methodological orientations, in “‘Far From Ideal’: The Gender Politics of Political Science” Sue Tolleson-Rinehart and Susan J. Carroll study political science as a gendered institution with a decidedly mixed history of women's participation and advancement. Mixed, too, has been the history of political scientists' (in)attentiveness to some of the most divisive issues of western society, including race/ethnicity and religion. In “Su Casa Es Nuestra Casa: Latino Politics Research and the Development of American Political Science,” Luis R. Fraga, John A. Garcia, Rodney E. Hero, Michael Jones-Correa, Valerie Martinez-Ebers, and Gary M. Segura argue that although it has long been regarded as a separate area of research, walled off from mainstream scholarship, research on Latino politics has actually engaged constructively with and contributed significantly to the broader discipline. At the same time, religion and politics remains something of a backwater within political science, under-theorized and under-researched. In “Getting Religion: Has Political Science Rediscovered the Faith Factor?,” Kenneth D. Wald and Clyde Wilcox suggest that this neglect of a vitally important topic stems from both its perceived complexity and the social backgrounds of political scientists.

Although cleavage lines of various sorts were evident within political science from the very beginning, they coalesced and exploded in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, sparked in large measure by the “behavioral revolution.” At that point, as David Kettler chronicles in “The Political Theory Question in Political Science, 1956–1967,” the Straussian school of political theorists strove to establish itself as the “ethical teacher and loyal opposition of American political science.” Its failure to solidify its leadership position left political theory as a loose federation united only by its rejection of many of the core tenets of the behavioral revolution. Benjamin Barber takes a closer look at a key episode from that era in “The Politics of Political Science: ‘Value-Free' Theory and the Wolin-Strauss Dust-Up of 1963.” Ironically, Barber notes, the theorists participating in that controversy directed their fire at one another rather than at what each regarded as their main target, behavorialism—implicitly confirming Strauss's concern that political theorists were fiddling while the discipline was burning. At approximately the same time, Bernard Crick was lambasting American political science, as Michael Kenny relates in “History and Dissent: Bernard Crick's The American Science of Politics.” Though little read today, at least on this side of the Atlantic, Crick raised questions that continue to resonate, such as whether and how political science can meaningfully engage contemporary political controversies and speak to wider audiences outside the discipline.

Lindsay Rogers's fame has probably faded even faster than Crick's within political science, but in Amy Fried's “The Forgotten Lindsay Rogers and the Development of American Political Science,” we learn that in the middle of the twentieth century he stood at the forefront of the field. Crossing traditional disciplinary and sub-disciplinary boundaries, Rogers criticized both the practice and the study of democratic politics in ways that seem no less relevant today than when they were written. Focusing on another challenge to the established disciplinary order, in “Hermeneutics, Political Inquiry, and Practical Reason: An Evolving Challenge to Political Science” Michael T. Gibbons homes in on the interpretivist critique of mainstream political science. Gibbons's dissection of interpretivism and its historical tension with mainstream approaches provides important insights for those who sit on one side of the aisle or the other.

Many of the momentous events and trends analyzed in this issue were propelled by a few key individuals, some of whom live on in memory while others are long forgotten. Preeminent among the former is Woodrow Wilson, whose attempt to set the discipline on a track of his design ultimately ended as a road not taken. In “Wilson's Failure: Roots of Contention about the Meaning of a Science of Politics,” Peter N. Ubertaccio and Brian J. Cook trace the discipline's contentious history from Wilson's unsuccessful attempts to steer it away from the natural sciences and to bridge the gap between politics as practice and as science. A later attempt to bridge the gap occupies center stage in James Farr, Jacob S. Hacker, and Nicole Kazee's “The Policy Scientist of Democracy: The Discipline of Harold D. Lasswell.” Lasswell envisioned political science as a “policy science” actively engaged in the political process by speaking truth to power. Intriguingly, Lasswell's vision was largely consonant with that of Charles Merriam, an early leader of the behavioral movement, which has long been castigated as “apolitical.” As Michael T. Heaney and John Mark Hansen establish in “Building the Chicago School,” the institution that Merriam built, which housed an extraordinary array of talented scholars, emerged not as a fortuitous convergence of previously unaligned forces, but by conscious design. Some of its prominent members were European émigrés who had sought refuge in the United States. Tracing the role that European émigré scholars played in the development of one particular subfield of political science, Gerald Loewenberg shows in “The Influence of European Émigré Scholars on Comparative Politics, 1925–1965” that notwithstanding its distinctly American cast, the American study of comparative politics has deep European roots.

Political science has always been a federation of loosely connected subfields rather than a tightly integrated field of study. To what extent have the separate ontogenies of its scattered components recapitulated the phylogeny of the discipline as a whole? Several of the essays in this issue consider the evolution of particular subfields. In “Researching Electoral Politics,” Philip E. Converse, who with his fellow co-authors of The American Voter did so much to shape our understanding of electoral behavior, offers both an insider's view of the early voting studies and a critical perspective on more recent scholarship. Converse's essay is likely to be the pièce de résistance of this issue for many readers, but by no means does it stand alone. Consider, for example, Howard L. Reiter's “The Study of Political Parties, 1906–2005: The View from the Journals” and Kathleen Knight's “Transformations of the Concept of Ideology in the Twentieth Century,” two painstakingly researched synopses of the evolution of scholarship on topics closely related to Converse's. Consider, too, the interplay between the development of new methodological approaches and tools, on the one hand, and advances in theoretically based substantive understanding of politics, on the other. In that connection, James N. Druckman, Donald P. Green, James H. Kuklinski, and Arthur Lupia, in “The Growth and Development of Experimental Research in Political Science,” analyze the growing embrace of experimental research by political scientists and Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, in “Game Theory, Political Economy, and the Evolving Study of War and Peace,” turns a spotlight on the impact of game theoretic methods on our understanding of some of the most enduring issues of international relations theory.

Over the years, even as political science has evolved according to its own (il)logic, it has not been isolated from developments in the “real world.” This interplay between events and trends inside and outside of political science has been complex. In “From Opposition to Accommodation: How Rockefeller Foundation Grants Redefined Relations between Political Theory and Social Science in the 1950s,” Emily Hauptmann probes a case in point of how profoundly external funding of political science research has shaped the development of a field. Nor is the real world of politics immune to the influence of political science theory and research. In “The Review's Evolving Relevance for U.S. Foreign Policy, 1906–2006,” Andrew Bennett and G. John Ikenberry argue that even though the Review has moved away from the direct attempts at policy relevance that were characteristic of its early years, by influencing what scholars teach and publish in policy-oriented outlets it indirectly informs policy debates on major issues.

Although our theme of evolution suggests change, much about political science has remained largely unchanged over the last century. A good example is the profession's posture toward undergraduate teaching, which is unwittingly conveyed by faculty members who speak of research “opportunites” and teaching “loads.” In “A Century of Continuity and (Little) Change in the Undergraduate Political Science Curriculum,” John Ishiyama, Marijke Breuning, and Linda Lopez describe the ebb and flow of the profession's interest in curricular reform over the years and conclude that the reform proposals promulgated by a series of high-profile panels have been ineffectual.

THE “TOP 20” COMMENTARIES

A special feature of this centennial issue is a set of looks back at some of the most influential articles that have appeared in the pages of the Review during its century-long existence. To identify these articles, we knew of no better approach than the increasingly conventional, though obviously fallible, one of tracking citation frequencies. Thus understood, the most influential articles are those that have served most often as source material for political scientists and other scholars—a definition that highlights one important dimension of influence while ignoring others. With the pertinent data in hand, we asked the authors of the twenty most frequently-cited articles in the history of the Review or, where necessary, appropriate stand-ins for these authors, to prepare brief commentaries addressing such issues as why their article had been so influential, whether their views had changed since it was published, and how they might write it differently today. We think their responses make for fascinating reading and we expect these “Top 20” essays to be avidly read.

THE REVIEW,'S CENTENNIAL TRIVIA QUIZ

Finally, as a once-in-a-century (“FREE!”) bonus feature of our centennial issue, we challenge readers to try their hands at, and grade themselves and their colleagues on, our Centennial Trivia Test. The terms “fun” and “American Political Science Review” are rarely used in conjunction with one another, but we hope that this little exercise will prove both instructive and entertaining.

The American Political Science Review Centennial Trivia Quiz (20 points possible. Go to the end of the quiz for the answers.)

The answers: (1) a (2) e. (3) d. (4) South Dakota/Charles Jones, Samuel Patterson, Lee Sigelman/University of South Dakota). (5) 1e, 2c, 3f, 4b, 5a, 6g, 7d. (6) e. (7) c. (8) e. (9) b. “The Recording of World War II” (v. 38, April 1944), was published anonymously, accompanied by the following editorial note: “This REVIEW has never before published a major contribution anonymously, and would not choose to do so now. During the war period, however, policies adopted in government circles in Washington will make it necessary to depart from established practice in a few instances. The present article comes first-hand from competent official authorities.” (10) False. The Review was a bimonthly from v. 26 (1932) through v. 43 (1949).

INSTRUCTIONS TO CONTRIBUTORS

General Considerations

The APSR strives to publish scholarly research of exceptional merit, focusing on important issues and demonstrating the highest standards of excellence in conceptualization, exposition, methodology, and craftsmanship. Because the APSR reaches a diverse audience of scholars and practitioners, authors must demonstrate how their analysis illuminates a significant research problem, or answers an important research question, of general interest in political science. For the same reason, authors must strive for a presentation that will be understandable to as many scholars as possible, consistent with the nature of their material.

The APSR publishes original work. Therefore, authors should not submit articles containing tables, figures, or substantial amounts of text that have already been published or are forthcoming in other places, or that have been included in other manuscripts submitted for review to book publishers or periodicals (including on-line journals). In many such cases, subsequent publication of this material would violate the copyright of the other publisher. The APSR also does not consider papers that are currently under review by other journals or duplicate or overlap with parts of larger manuscripts that have been submitted to other publishers (including publishers of both books and periodicals). Submission of manuscripts substantially similar to those submitted or published elsewhere, or as part of a book or other larger work, is also strongly discouraged. If you have any questions about whether these policies apply in your particular case, you should discuss any such publications related to a submission in a cover letter to the Editor. You should also notify the Editor of any related submissions to other publishers, whether for book or periodical publication, that occur while a manuscript is under review by the APSR and which would fall within the scope of this policy. The Editor may request copies of related publications.

If your manuscript contains quantitative evidence and analysis, you should describe your procedures in sufficient detail to permit reviewers to understand and evaluate what has been done and, in the event that the article is accepted for publication, to permit other scholars to carry out similar analyses on other data sets. For example, for surveys, at the least, sampling procedures, response rates, and question wordings should be given; you should calculate response rates according to one of the standard formulas given by the American Association for Public Opinion Research, Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys (Ann Arbor, MI: AAPOR, 2000). This document is available on the Internet at <http://www.aapor.org/default.asp?page = survey_methods/standards_and_best_practices/standard_definitions>. For experiments, provide full descriptions of experimental protocols, methods of subject recruitment and selection, subject payments and debriefing procedures, and so on. Articles should be self-contained, so you should not simply refer readers to other publications for descriptions of these basic research procedures.

Please indicate variables included in statistical analyses by capitalizing the first letter in the variable name and italicizing the entire variable name the first time~each is mentioned in the text. You should also use the same names for variables in text and tables and, wherever possible, should avoid the use of acronyms and computer abbreviations when discussing variables in the text. All variables appearing in tables should have been mentioned in the text and the reason for their inclusion discussed.

As part of the review process, you may be asked to submit additional documentation if procedures are not sufficiently clear; the review process works most efficiently if such information is given in the initial submission. If you advise readers that additional information is available, you should submit printed copies of that information with the manuscript. If the amount of this supplementary information is extensive, please inquire about alternate procedures.

The APSR uses a double-blind review process. You should follow the guidelines for preparing anonymous copies in the Specific Procedures section below.

Manuscripts that are largely or entirely critiques or commentaries on previously published APSR articles will be reviewed using the same general procedures as for other manuscripts, with one exception. In addition to the usual number of reviewers, such manuscripts will also be sent to the scholar(s) whose work is being criticized, in the same anonymous form that they are sent to reviewers. Comments from the original author(s) to the Editor will be invited as a supplement to the advice of reviewers. This notice to the original author(s) is intended (1) to encourage review of the details of analyses or research procedures that might escape the notice of disinterested reviewers; (2) to enable prompt publication of critiques by supplying criticized authors with early notice of their existence and, therefore, more adequate time to reply; and (3) as a courtesy to criticized authors. If you submit such a manuscript, you should therefore send as many additional copies of their manuscripts as will be required for this purpose.

Manuscripts being submitted for publication should be sent to Lee Sigelman, Editor, American Political Science Review, Department of Political Science, The George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052. Correspondence concerning manuscripts under review may be sent to the same address or e-mailed to [email protected].

Manuscript Formatting

Manuscripts should not be longer than 45 pages including text, all tables and figures, notes, references, and appendices. This page size guideline is based on the U.S. standard 8.5×11-inch paper; if you are submitting a manuscript printed on longer paper, you must adjust accordingly. The font size must be at least 11 points for all parts of the paper, including notes and references. The entire paper, including notes and references, must be double-spaced, with the sole exception of tables for which double-spacing would require a second page otherwise not needed. All pages should be numbered in one sequence, and text should be formatted using a normal single column no wider than 6.5 inches, as is typical for manuscripts (rather than the double-column format of the published version of the APSR), and printed on one side of the page only. Include an abstract of no more than 150 words. The APSR style of embedded citations should be used, and there must be a separate list of references at the end of the manuscript. Do not use notes for simple citations. These specifications are designed to make it easier for reviewers to read and evaluate papers. Papers not adhering to these guidelines are subject to being rejected without review.

For submission and review purposes, you may place footnotes at the bottom of the pages instead of using endnotes, and you may locate tables and figures (on separate pages and only one to a page) approximately where they fall in the text. However, manuscripts accepted for publication must be submitted with endnotes, and with tables and figures on separate pages at the back of the manuscript with standard indications of text placement, e.g., [Table 3 about here]. In deciding how to format your initial submission, please consider the necessity of making these changes if your paper is accepted. If your paper is accepted for publication, you will also be required to submit camera-ready copy of graphs or other types of figures. Instructions will be provided.

For specific formatting style of citations and references, please refer to articles in the most recent issue of the APSR. For unusual style or formatting issues, you should consult the latest edition of The Chicago Manual of Style. For review purposes, citations and references need not be in specific APSR format, although some generally accepted format should be used, and all citation and reference information should be provided.

Specific Procedures

Please follow these specific procedures for submission:

1. You are invited to submit a list of scholars who would be appropriate reviewers of your manuscript. The Editor will refer to this list in selecting reviewers, though there obviously can be no guarantee that those you suggest will actually be chosen. Do not list anyone who has already commented on your paper or an earlier version of it, or any of your current or recent collaborators, institutional colleagues, mentors, students, or close friends.
2. Submit five copies of manuscripts and a diskette or CD containing a pdf file of the anonymous version of the manuscript. If you cannot save the manuscript as a pdf, just send in the diskette or CD with the word-processed version. Please ensure that the paper and diskette or CD versions you submit are identical; the diskette or CD version should be of the anonymous copy (see below). Please review all pages of all copies to make sure that all copies contain all tables, figures, appendices, and bibliography mentioned in the manuscript and that all pages are legible. Label the diskette or CD clearly with the (first) author's name and the title of the manuscript (in abridged form if need be), and identify the word processing program and operating system. If you are unable to create a diskette or CD, please note this in your submission, and you will be asked to e-mail the appropriate file.
3. To comply with the APSR's procedure of double-blind peer reviews, only one of the five copies submitted should be fully identified as to authorship and four should be in anonymous format.
4. For anonymous copies, if it is important to the development of the paper that your previous publications be cited, please do this in a way that does not make the authorship of the submitted paper obvious. This is usually most easily accomplished by referring to yourself in the third person and including normal references to the work cited in the list of references. In no circumstances should your prior publications be included in the bibliography in their normal alphabetical location but with your name deleted. Assuming that text references to your previous work are in the third person, you should include full citations as usual in the bibliography. Please discuss the use of other procedures to render manuscripts anonymous with the Editor prior to submission. You should not thank colleagues in notes or elsewhere in the body of the paper or mention institution names, web page addresses, or other potentially identifying information. All acknowledgments must appear on the title page of the identified copy only. Manuscripts that are judged not anonymous will not be reviewed.
5. The first page of the four anonymous copies should contain only the title and an abstract of no more than 150 words. The first page of the identified copy should contain (a) the name, academic rank, institutional affiliation, and contact information (mailing address, telephone, fax, e-mail address) for all authors; (b) in the case of multiple authors, an indication of the author who will receive correspondence; (c) any relevant citations to your previous work that have been omitted from the anonymous copies; and (d) acknowledgments, including the names of anyone who has provided comments on the manuscript. If the identified copy contains any unique references or is worded differently in any way, please mark this copy with “Contains author citations” at the top of the first page.

No copies of submitted manuscripts can be returned.

ELECTRONIC ACCESS TO THE APSR

Back issues of the APSR are available in several electronic formats and through several vendors. Except for the last three years (as an annually “moving wall”), back issues of the APSR beginning with Volume 1, Number 1 (November 1906), are available on-line through JSTOR (http://www.jstor.org/). At present, JSTOR's complete journal collection is available only via institutional subscription, e.g., through many college and university libraries. For APSA members who do not have access to an institutional subscription to JSTOR, individual subscriptions to its APSR content are available. Please contact Member Services at APSA for further information, including annual subscription fees.

Individual members of the American Political Science Association can access recent issues of the APSR and PS through the APSA website (www.apsanet.org) with their username and password. Individual nonmember access to the online edition will also be available, but only through institutions that hold either a print-plus-electronic subscription or an electronic-only subscription, provided the institution has registered and activated its online subscription.

Full text access to current issues of both the APSR and PS is also available on-line by library subscription from a number of database vendors. Currently, these include University Microfilms Inc. (UMI) (via its CD-ROMs General Periodicals Online and Social Science Index and the on-line database ProQuest Direct), Online Computer Library Center (OCLC) (through its on-line database First Search as well as on CD-ROMs and magnetic tape), and the Information Access Company (IAC) (through its products Expanded Academic Index, InfoTrac, and several on-line services [see below]). Others may be added from time to time.

The APSR is also available on databases through six online services: Datastar (Datastar), Business Library (Dow Jones), Cognito (IAC), Encarta Online Library (IAC), IAC Business (Dialog), and Newsearch (Dialog).

The editorial office of the APSR is not involved in the subscription process to either JSTOR for back issues or the other vendors for current issues. Please contact APSA, your reference librarian, or the database vendor for further information about availability.

BOOK REVIEWS

The APSR no longer contains book reviews. As of 2003, book reviews have moved to Perspectives on Politics. All books for review should be sent to the Perspectives on Politics Book Review Editor, Jeffrey C. Isaac. The address is Professor Jeffrey C. Isaac, Review Editor, Perspectives on Politics, Department of Political Science, Woodburn Hall, 1100 E. 7th St., Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405-7110. E-mail: [email protected].

If you are the author of a book you wish to be considered for review, please ask your publisher to send a copy to the Perspectives on Politics Book Review Editors per the mailing instructions above. If you are interested in reviewing books for Perspectives on Politics, please send your vita to the Book Review Editors; you should not ask to review a specific book.

OTHER CORRESPONDENCE

The American Political Science Association's address, telephone, and fax are 1527 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, (202) 483-2512 (voice), and (202) 483-2657 (fax). E-mail: [email protected]. Please direct correspondence as follows.

Information, including news and notes, for PS:

Dr. Robert J-P. Hauck, Editor, PS

E-mail: [email protected]

Circulation and subscription correspondence (domestic claims for nonreceipt of issues must be made within four months of the month of publication; overseas claims, within eight months):

Sean Twombly,

Director of Member Services

E-mail: [email protected]

Reprint permissions:

E-mail: [email protected]

Advertising information and rates:

Advertising Coordinator,

Cambridge University Press

E-mail: [email protected]

EXPEDITING REQUESTS FOR COPYING APSR AND PS ARTICLES FOR CLASS USE AND OTHER PURPOSES

Class Use

The Comprehensive Publisher Photocopy Agreement between APSA and the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) permits bookstores and copy centers to receive expedited clearance to copy articles from the APSR and PS in compliance with the Association's policies and applicable fees. The general fee for articles is 75 cents per copy. However, current Association policy levies no fee for the first 10 copies of a printed artide, whether in course packs or on reserve. Smaller classes that rely heavily on articles (i.e., upper-level undergraduate and graduate classes) can take advantage of this provision, and faculty ordering 10 or fewer course packs should bring it to the attention of course pack providers. APSA policy also permits free use of the electronic library reserve, with no limit on the number of students who can access the electronic reserve. Both large and small classes that rely on these articles can take advantage of this provision. The CCC's address, telephone, and fax are 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, (978) 750-8400 (voice), and (978) 750-4474 (fax). This agreement pertains only to the reproduction and distribution of APSA materials as hard copies (e.g., photocopies, microfilm, and microfiche).

The Association of American Publishers (AAP) has created a standardized form for college faculty to submit to a copy center or bookstore to request copyrighted material for course packs. The form is available through the CCC, which will handle copyright permissions.

APSA also has a separate agreement pertaining to CCC's Academic E-Reserve Service. This agreement allows electronic access for students and instructors of a designated class at a designated institution for a specified article or set of articles in electronic format. Access is by password for the duration of a class.

Please contact your librarian, the CCC, or the APSA Reprints Department for further information.

APSR Authors

If you are the author of an APSR article, you may use your article in course packs or other printed materials without payment of royalty fees and you may post it at personal or institutional web sites as long as the APSA copyright notice is included.

Other Uses of APSA-Copyrighted Materials

For any further copyright issues, please contact the APSA Reprints Department.

INDEXING

Articles appearing in the APSR before June 1953 were indexed in The Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature. Current issues are indexed in ABC Pol Sci; America, History and Life 1954–; Book Review Index; Current Contents: Social and Behavioral Sciences; EconLit; Energy Information Abstracts; Environmental Abstracts; Historical Abstracts; Index of Economic Articles; Information Service Bulletin; International Index; International Political Science Abstracts; the Journal of Economic Literature; Periodical Abstracts; Public Affairs; Public Affairs Information Service International Recently Published Articles; Reference Sources; Social Sciences and Humanities Index; Social Sciences Index; Social Work Research and Abstracts; and Writings on American History. Some of these sources may be available in electronic form through local public or educational libraries. Microfilm of the APSR, beginning with Volume 1, and the index of the APSR through 1969 are available through University Microfilms Inc., 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106 (www.umi.com). The Cumulative Index to the American Political Science Review, Volumes 63 to 89: 1969–95, is available through the APSA.