No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Toward a Definition of Editorial Policy for the Review*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
Extract
Editorial policy reflects in part an ideal, in part a code of operating practice. It is the editor's business to maintain some gap, but not too large a gap, between the two—to keep the ideal always some distance ahead of the practice, and to keep the practice from lagging too far behind. And it is inherent in the notion of policy that both ideal and practice embody a degree of rational consistency in statement and application that rules out mere personal caprice.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Political Science Association 1962
References
1 References and citations in current literature to issues of the Review that antedate the end of World War II are quite uncommon. This may be set down as one of the marks of the gap between the ideal and the practice, either on the part of the Review or of the current literature. More likely it only means that articles, more than books, make their contributions to the ongoing stream of professional thought within a few years and then usually lose their distinctive identities as sources needing individual citation. It also reflects the shifts in present professional concerns and in conceptions of the discipline.
2 See the admirable discussion by Leiserson, Avery, “Toward a Definition of Book Review Policy,” that follows this paper, below, pp. 139–141Google Scholar.
3 Customarily, only two of the 40-odd articles published each year—the President's address and the annual review of developments in constitutional law—have been regularly solicited. I have not hesitated to follow up occasional tips from trustworthy sources telling me of significant work in progress that might be had for the asking; and on other occasions I have invited a comment on a manuscript already in hand, to be published along with it. But these are infrequent and ad hoc exceptions to the usual policy of reliance on offerings.
4 In a conversation I had some years ago on this point with the editor of an esteemed British journal he expressed astonishment on learning of Review policy: “With us, no one who is anyone would dream of sending off an article to our journal without first receiving a nod ot invitation from the editor.” We concluded that his journal fills its requirements in the way that American departments prefer to make their appointments, by consulting knowledgeable friends informally; while the Review works in the way the British make appointments, by a public advertisement inviting all who think themselves qualified to come forward and submit their credentials.
5 Over the signature of the Executive Director of the Association, not the Managing Editor, since the Association holds the copyright, and with or without a royalty charge depending on circumstances. A charge is made, e.g., for the inclusion of a Review article in a book of readings commercially published. Policy to govern charges is currently under review in the Executive Committee of the Association.