American Political Science Review (2018)112.4.v-vi doi:10.1017/S0003055418000540 American Political Science Association 2018 Notes from the Editors Like other sciences,Political Science consists of sub- the research published in the aPSR should speak to fields with,at times,different focuses,methodologi- the whole discipline,rather than a particular subfield cal approaches,and understandings of what constitutes onlv. "scholarly research of exceptional merit"that is worth As editors of the APSR,it is our responsibility to being published in the American Political Science Re- select the appropriate reviewers for manuscripts that view (APSR).In these Notes from the Editors,we want are sent out for review.Even though most manuscripts to take a closer look at subfield developments over are eventually rejected,potentially the most important time and provide some insights into the role of subfield service we provide our authors with is our dedication classification in our editorial process.Being a corner- to receiving quality reviews that ultimately improve 4 stone of this journal,we work hard as editors to publish the authors'research independent of the editorial out- a balanced selection of research from these subfields come.In fact,it might be commonly believed that the which should theoretically mirror the submission rates bulk of editors'work concentrates on the selection of we receive.Yet,despite having their own standards and publishable manuscripts,but we have come to under- principles for the evaluation of excellent manuscripts stand that a similarly challenging task is to satisfy the subfield classifications often overlap in practice and disappointed authors of rejected manuscripts.These change over time.Before we go into detail,we would manuscripts constitute around 95%of our submissions therefore like to stress that the comparison of sub- and their authors,as a result make up a large part of our field developments,such as the number of submissions reviewer pool.Without their expertise and support,a and acceptances,should always be taken with a grain reviewer pool of only authors whose manuscripts were 4号 of salt as their classification is neither exclusive nor published would be empty very quickly.We believe complete. that by providing excellent reviews we can succeed in As a generalist journal,we pursue a pluralist strategy overcoming their disappointment and help them im- that covers all subfields in Political Science.However prove their research and publication chances in the not unlike any other scholar,editors and reviewers tend future. to apply their own subfield standards and principles In the figure below we present a closer look at how when it comes at evaluating other research.When we both submission and acceptance rates across subfields took over the editorship we were aware of such poten- have developed over the last decade.As mentioned be tial subfield bias which,in the worst case.may result in fore,subfields are reported by the authors when sub- systematic subfield differences.In order to reduce such mitting to the APSR.The shares of submissions and ac- 是 bias and cope with the approximate 1,400 manuscripts ceptances are calculated per editorial term,which runs we receive annually,we introduced a bilateral editorial from July 1st to June 30th the following year. decision-making system that combines the subfield ex- A few developments are worth discussing.For most pertise of our associate editors with an increased level subfields,submission and acceptance rates correlate of accountability and oversight being the responsibility with each other on average.It suggests that most of the of the lead editor.While the former is targeted at be- time,the editors were and are able to make acceptance ing able to identify merit in a subfield,the latter aims decisions that reflect the composition of subfield sub- at ensuring an overall balance in the journal's orien- missions they receive.This is true for the major sub- tation to cover research from subfields throughout the fields American Politics,Comparative Politics and In- discipline. ternational Relations.but is also true for the smaller With the responsible associate editors still having subfields we also review. discretion left in their decision making,the assignment Nevertheless,there are also periods were submission of manuscripts to subfields may become influential for and acceptance rates deviate more persistently.For ex- the review process of a manuscript.Usually,authors ample,acceptance rates in Normative Political Theory indicate the subfield(s)to which their manuscript be- were much higher than the submissions rates before we longs,which in turn sends the first signal regarding took over.In the current editorial term,however.this the selection of both the responsible associate editor ratio is much more balanced.Yet,we also see diverging eys and potential reviewers.Nevertheless,the lead editor developments during our term:While the share of ac- may disagree with the authors'subfield assignment and cepted manuscripts in both Comparative Politics and allocate the manuscript to an associate editor from Formal Theory has been increasing in comparison to another subfield who is likely to have expertise on their submission share,we observe a decline in accep- different aspects of the manuscript's subject.Conse- tances in International Relations,which follows a trend quently,this associate editor may select different re- from previous years. viewers than who the authors originally may have had One potential explanation for the diverging trends in mind.While the overall review of the manuscript in Comparative Politics and International Relations is could come from a different (subfield)perspective that,at least from our impression,the borders of these than what maybe was expected from the original sub- two subfields are increasingly blurred.For example,we field classification.ultimately,this should not matter as receive an ever-increasing number of field experimentsAmerican Political Science Review (2018) 112, 4, v–vi doi:10.1017/S0003055418000540 © American Political Science Association 2018 Notes from the Editors Like other sciences, Political Science consists of sub￾fields with, at times, different focuses, methodologi￾cal approaches, and understandings of what constitutes “scholarly research of exceptional merit” that is worth being published in the American Political Science Re￾view (APSR). In these Notes from the Editors, we want to take a closer look at subfield developments over time and provide some insights into the role of subfield classification in our editorial process. Being a corner￾stone of this journal, we work hard as editors to publish a balanced selection of research from these subfields, which should theoretically mirror the submission rates we receive. Yet, despite having their own standards and principles for the evaluation of excellent manuscripts, subfield classifications often overlap in practice and change over time. Before we go into detail, we would therefore like to stress that the comparison of sub￾field developments, such as the number of submissions and acceptances, should always be taken with a grain of salt as their classification is neither exclusive nor complete. As a generalist journal, we pursue a pluralist strategy that covers all subfields in Political Science. However, not unlike any other scholar, editors and reviewers tend to apply their own subfield standards and principles when it comes at evaluating other research. When we took over the editorship we were aware of such poten￾tial subfield bias which, in the worst case, may result in systematic subfield differences. In order to reduce such bias and cope with the approximate 1,400 manuscripts we receive annually, we introduced a bilateral editorial decision-making system that combines the subfield ex￾pertise of our associate editors with an increased level of accountability and oversight being the responsibility of the lead editor. While the former is targeted at be￾ing able to identify merit in a subfield, the latter aims at ensuring an overall balance in the journal’s orien￾tation to cover research from subfields throughout the discipline. With the responsible associate editors still having discretion left in their decision making, the assignment of manuscripts to subfields may become influential for the review process of a manuscript. Usually, authors indicate the subfield(s) to which their manuscript be￾longs, which in turn sends the first signal regarding the selection of both the responsible associate editor and potential reviewers. Nevertheless, the lead editor may disagree with the authors’ subfield assignment and allocate the manuscript to an associate editor from another subfield who is likely to have expertise on different aspects of the manuscript’s subject. Conse￾quently, this associate editor may select different re￾viewers than who the authors originally may have had in mind. While the overall review of the manuscript could come from a different (subfield) perspective than what maybe was expected from the original sub￾field classification, ultimately, this should not matter as the research published in the APSR should speak to the whole discipline, rather than a particular subfield only. As editors of the APSR, it is our responsibility to select the appropriate reviewers for manuscripts that are sent out for review. Even though most manuscripts are eventually rejected, potentially the most important service we provide our authors with is our dedication to receiving quality reviews that ultimately improve the authors’ research independent of the editorial out￾come. In fact, it might be commonly believed that the bulk of editors’ work concentrates on the selection of publishable manuscripts, but we have come to under￾stand that a similarly challenging task is to satisfy the disappointed authors of rejected manuscripts. These manuscripts constitute around 95% of our submissions and their authors, as a result make up a large part of our reviewer pool. Without their expertise and support, a reviewer pool of only authors whose manuscripts were published would be empty very quickly. We believe that by providing excellent reviews we can succeed in overcoming their disappointment and help them im￾prove their research and publication chances in the future. In the figure below we present a closer look at how both submission and acceptance rates across subfields have developed over the last decade.As mentioned be￾fore, subfields are reported by the authors when sub￾mitting to the APSR. The shares of submissions and ac￾ceptances are calculated per editorial term, which runs from July 1st to June 30th the following year. A few developments are worth discussing. For most subfields, submission and acceptance rates correlate with each other on average. It suggests that most of the time, the editors were and are able to make acceptance decisions that reflect the composition of subfield sub￾missions they receive. This is true for the major sub￾fields American Politics, Comparative Politics and In￾ternational Relations, but is also true for the smaller subfields we also review. Nevertheless, there are also periods were submission and acceptance rates deviate more persistently. For ex￾ample, acceptance rates in Normative Political Theory were much higher than the submissions rates before we took over. In the current editorial term, however, this ratio is much more balanced. Yet, we also see diverging developments during our term: While the share of ac￾cepted manuscripts in both Comparative Politics and Formal Theory has been increasing in comparison to their submission share, we observe a decline in accep￾tances in International Relations, which follows a trend from previous years. One potential explanation for the diverging trends in Comparative Politics and International Relations is that, at least from our impression, the borders of these two subfields are increasingly blurred. For example, we receive an ever-increasing number of field experiments, v Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Shanghai JiaoTong University, on 26 Oct 2018 at 03:53:04, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055418000540