Skip to main content

What We Learned at Two Political Science Conferences

Jeannine Bell, Susan Sterett, & Margot Young 

Your hard working editors attended the Midwest Political Science Association and Western Political Science Association conferences in April.  We participated on panels with other editors to discuss journals and editing practices.  We also had informal conversations about our experiences with reviewers, administrative processes around having multiple editors, and the kinds of email requests and responses that editors get.  We also compared notes on our experiences as authors submitting to journals. 



So, first we learned Law and Society Review gets bragging rights for turning around most manuscripts in two months, from submission to decision.  We learned that practice from Tim Johnson and Joachim Savelsberg, the previous editors.  We thought with all the pressure on faculty to get their work out these days, all journal aimed for a quick turnaround.  The journal editors we spoke to at the conferences do.  We heard complaints, though, about journals taking eleven months for a review.  We won't do that.

The biggest limit on turning manuscripts around is reviewers who agree to a review but don't get the review in.  Delayed reviews can mean looking for another reviewer, and slowing down the process for authors.  

Editors discussed different practices concerning shapting a journal, bringing us to reflect on our practices.  Some journals have clear ideas of the kind of work they aim to publish; others aim to publish the best work in the field they can, rather than shaping around a particular set of questions or methods.  We like that; we are not favoring a version of excellent sociolegal scholarship.  

Finally, we sometimes add a new reviewer after a resubmission, rather than only going to the initial reviewers.  Other journals do the same.  Initial reviewers are necessary to assessing revised manuscripts but new reviewers can help both us and the authors.  Sadly, we do not have space to publish every manuscript that reviews well.  
Every journal keeps a backlog of articles, in queue for publication.  We cannot keep a large one as we are editing for three years and the next editors get to decide what they will do.  So you can expect to be in print within six months or so of an acceptance.

Finally, thanks to the suggestions from Wiley, we will be joining other journals and moving to 'early view'; accepted articles will be available online as soon as they are ready.  So, we look forward to reading your manuscripts (and your reviews)!  



Popular posts from this blog

Ten Insights Regarding Sexual Harassment

By Loan Le, President of the Institute for Good Government and Inclusion The #MeToo explosion has demonstrated how common sexual harassment is and how quiet the settlements are, or how much people have not complained. It’s long been named as illegal sex discrimination in the United States,as a result of feminist movements. Sociolegal scholars explain what happens to complaints on the ground, an exercise of political power if ever there was one. Amy Blackstone, Christopher Uggen and Heather McLaughlin argued in Law and Society Review, assailants often choose women who are least likely to complain. As Anna Maria Marshall and Abigail Saguy have argued, people and workplace organizations explain problems in ways that limit their meaning as unequal working conditions, or sexual assault. The news in the United States has taken over other ways of explaining women’s disadvantages at work, including in the academy. We have yet to see systematic discussion of problems in the academy. Her…

End impunity! Reducing conflict-related sexual violence to a problem of law

By Anette Bringedal Houge & Kjersti Lohne, Department of Criminology and Sociology of Law, University of Oslo
(Image from Global Summit to End Sexual Violence in Conflict, 2014, hosted by UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office)

In our recent article, End impunity! Reducing conflict-related sexual violence to a problem of law, we question the taken-for-granted center-stage position of international criminal justice in international policy responses to conflict-related sexual violence. We address how central policy and advocacy actors explain such violence and its consequences for targeted individuals in order to promote and strengthen the fight against impunity. With the help of apt analytical tools provided by framing theory, we show how the UN Security Council and Human Rights Watch construct a simplistic understanding of conflict-related sexual violence in order to get their message and call for action across to wider audiences and constituencies – including a clear and short caus…

Early view comes to LSR

You can now access articles as soon as they are ready for publication rather than wait until the whole issue is out. We also invite you to sign up for content alerts on the Wiley site, so you learn as soon as an article is available.