{"id":53517,"date":"2023-03-24T10:15:00","date_gmt":"2023-03-24T10:15:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/cupblog.bluefusesystems.com\/?p=53517"},"modified":"2023-03-23T13:16:40","modified_gmt":"2023-03-23T13:16:40","slug":"what-makes-a-good-review","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/2023\/03\/24\/what-makes-a-good-review\/","title":{"rendered":"What Makes a Good Review"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>\n

As editors of the American Political Science Review<\/a><\/em>, we are very grateful to our reviewers for the invaluable service they provide when reviewing submitted manuscripts. We appreciate all the excellent reviews we receive from our reviewers, and recognize that they are taking time out of their busy schedules to provide constructive criticism to our authors. Because reviews have two audiences\u2014the journal\u2019s editor and the author of the reviewed manuscript\u2014reviewers may sometimes find it difficult to strike the right balance. What makes a good review? In this blog, we provide some advice to potential reviewers about what we hope your review will accomplish for our authors and for us.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Because we primarily use reviews to inform our decisions about whether to accept or reject articles and letters, we read the feedback reviewers provide to authors very carefully. The best reviews discuss the merits and shortcomings of manuscripts, focusing on their main arguments, theoretical contribution, research design, quality of the analysis, and organization and writing. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Excellent reviews explain whether the author(s) have clearly stated their research question(s) and their central thesis; whether they meaningfully engaged relevant literature(s); situated their contribution in a way that makes evident what it adds to extant debates; framed the topic to highlight its significance; and detailed the implications of their argument. They assess the manuscript\u2019s theoretical contribution and, when applicable, its research design and methodology. Is the theoretical contribution novel and compelling? Is the research design appropriate and well executed? Are there methodological errors that should preclude publication? Is the analysis sound, and are the central claims and arguments persuasive?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Last but not least, an excellent review advises the editors about the article\u2019s potential to make an important contribution to political scientists\u2019 understanding of the political world. In other words, what \u201cbig\u201d contribution does the paper make? Is it novel? Is it pathbreaking? Does it significantly advance our knowledge about politics, broadly construed? These qualities are the hallmarks of an APSR article.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While many of these questions have yes\/no answers on the surface, the best reviewers go above and beyond by providing a \u201cno, but\u201d response. A savvy reviewer sometimes sees a contribution that the manuscript\u2019s author may not have recognized, or can recommend modest shifts in research design, framing, or execution that can make a promising but not wholly successful article significantly stronger. Even if a manuscript is not ultimately destined for publication in the APSR<\/em>, a critical but constructive review that advises an author on how to strengthen the manuscript or on how to frame or attack the problem can help to make the process worthwhile for the author.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although only a small percentage of papers submitted to the APSR are published in the journal, detailed and constructive criticism helps authors improve their work, and very often papers that receive a \u201creject\u201d decision go on, in revised form, to be published elsewhere, thanks in no small part to our reviewers. Regardless of whether we issue a rejection or an invitation to revise and resubmit, you will be notified of the result, and you will also receive a copy of the editors\u2019 decision letter, along with all of the manuscripts\u2019 reviews. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

If the manuscript receives an invitation to revise and resubmit, the editors usually send the revised manuscript, along with a memo from the author(s) detailing the changes they have made, to the reviewers of the first draft. Occasionally, one of the original reviewers may be unable to continue in the review process. When this happens, we invite another reviewer with similar expertise to join the review process. In these cases, the new reviewer will read the original manuscript and reviews, along with the revised submission. During the second round of reviews, the editors are interested in determining whether the authors have adequately addressed the reviewers\u2019 concerns. It is particularly helpful if you evaluate the revised manuscript holistically, considering not only whether the authors addressed your concerns, but also whether they addressed the key concerns of the other reviewers, and more generally whether the paper is above the bar for publication in our discipline\u2019s flagship journal. It is not uncommon for authors to receive a second invitation to revise and resubmit. Sometimes reviewers recommend that a paper should be rejected after revision, perhaps because it still needs extensive revisions, or perhaps because the reviewer believes the authors, despite their efforts, cannot address important flaws in the work. If this is the case, the reviewers should say so, and explain their concerns, so that the editors can decide whether to continue to proceed with the manuscript.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We are particularly grateful to reviewers who provide detailed comments on both the manuscripts that they recommend for possible publication and those that they recommend be rejected. Often negative reviews are more thorough and extensive than positive reviews. However, because the editors rely on expert reviewers for advice, we appreciate positive evaluations that explain why the manuscript merits publication. If we receive very cursory comments, we sometimes consult with additional editors on our team, additional reviewers, and\/or members of our editorial board. If a reviewer is impressed with a manuscript and feels strongly that it should move forward, a detailed account of why that is the case helps the editorial team fully appreciate the positive evaluation. Reviewers should also not be concerned that an article they believe would make an important contribution to the field might suffer in the review process if they nonetheless take the time to provide detailed advice that will strengthen the article. We always appreciate reviews that engage a manuscript in the spirit of wanting to help the author achieve their full potential, especially when a reviewer is enthusiastic about the article\u2019s prospects for making a major contribution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Again, we want to acknowledge and express gratitude for our reviewers\u2019 hard work and their expertise. Reviewers are essential to the success of the journal and the research it publishes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

If you are interested in being a reviewer for the APSR, please contact our Managing Editor at apsr@apsanet.org<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

If you are interesting in learning more about the peer review process, please see the APSR \u201cinstructions for peer reviewers\u201d<\/a> or CUP\u2019s \u201cA Guide to Peer Reviewing Journal Articles<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

What makes a good review? Some advice to potential reviewers about what we hope your review will accomplish for our authors and for us.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":9,"featured_media":35525,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[17,7],"tags":[7483,4881,257,201,10643,2039,202],"coauthors":[7493],"class_list":["post-53517","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-politics","category-social-sciences","tag-american-political-science-association","tag-american-political-science-review","tag-apsa","tag-apsr","tag-article-review","tag-peer-review","tag-political-science"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53517","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/9"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=53517"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53517\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":53518,"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53517\/revisions\/53518"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/35525"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=53517"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=53517"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=53517"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=53517"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}