Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-7qhmt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T09:03:36.881Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Notes from the Editors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2011

Extract

In our most recent issue (November 2010), one thing stood out: The list of referees whom we thanked. Not only were their numbers great (some 1500), they were a veritable “who's who” of our profession, were more international and of more varied perspectives than ever before, and—we have to remind ourselves—none of them received a dime for their services. Almost all of them wrote thorough, careful, and helpful reviews and thus served the community of scholars selflessly. We are often drawn into longer correspondence with them, to explore further points they have raised or to discuss disagreement among referees, and we are all repeatedly impressed by their seriousness, dedication, and openness to contrary views. We also hear again and again from authors—yes, even ones whose articles we turn down—how greatly they have been helped by the referees' comments. We all owe these reviewers a large debt of gratitude; their work is at the core of our scholarly and scientific community.

Type
From the Editor: In This Issue
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Since we are talking about politicians, and more particularly about Italy, it may be important to note that the authors refer here to the candidates' previous legitimate, market incomes.

2 James G. Gimpel, Donald P. Green, and Daron R. Shaw.

4 One widely accepted guide to such norms is given by the American Anthropological Association's Code of Ethics, particularly Section III. http://www.aaanet.org/issues/policy-advocacy/upload/AAA-Ethics-Code-2009.pdf