For queries please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.
ABOUT THE JOURNAL
Political Analysis is the official journal of the Society for Political Methodology. We publish peer reviewed articles and letters that provide original and significant advances in the general area of political methodology, including both quantitative and qualitative methodological approaches. Authors who have any questions about the appropriateness of a potential submission are encouraged to contact the journal Editors at email@example.com
Political Analysis takes two different types of submissions: research articles and letters.
Research articles are the typical submission, longer papers that focus on the development, implementation, or analysis of new methodologies. Research articles are typically 25 to 30 pages of double-spaced 12-point font text (including notes and references), and 3-6 tables and figures. While Political Analysis will consider longer papers for potential review, authors are reminded that it is generally important to make their work as approachable as possible for readers, and that a shorter, well-focused manuscript will generally be better received by reviewers and readers. Authors are encouraged to submit supplementary materials along with their research article, if there is need for details that might be relevant for reference but are not essential for understanding the material presented in the paper.
Letters are short reports of original research focused on important methodological or empirical contributions. This includes, but is not limited to, new empirical findings, methodological advances, theoretical arguments, as well as comments on or extensions of previous work that move the field forward. Letters are peer reviewed and subjected to the same standards as Political Analysis research articles. Accepted Letters are published in the electronic and print versions of Political Analysis and are searchable and citable just like other articles in the journal. Letters do not normally exceed 2-4 pages of Political Analysis and should be no longer than 1500-3000 words. They are written in a succinct format similar to articles in the natural sciences and typically have 1-3 small display items (figures, tables, or equations) that convey the main results. Letters that comment on previous scholarship should focus on the contribution of the Letter and avoid needlessly attacking the original research and/or authors. Letters begin with an abstract, a paragraph of 200-300 words that summarizes the contribution. References should be kept to a minimum. Lengthy literature reviews should be omitted. Supplementary material can be submitted as a web appendix.
Both Research Articles and Letters must be prepared following the Information for Authors guidelines on the Political Analysis website and must conform to the Political Analysis style requirements. They are submitted through the Political Analysis electronic submission process and are subject to the Political Analysis replication policy.
THE REVIEW PROCESS
Political Analysis only reviews original research manuscripts, and will not review manuscripts that are currently under review at other journals or which have been published in other peer reviewed journals. Authors with questions about this policy should contact the Editors.
Political Analysis uses a single blind review process; authors do not need to anonymize their manuscripts. Anonymized manuscripts will be returned prior to review. Articles and Letters are reviewed first by the journal’s editorial staff, and the Co-Editors. Submissions that are overly long, poorly-written, incorrectly formatted, or whose content are not appropriate for the journal will not be reviewed. Authors are encouraged to examine material that has recently been published in the journal if they have questions about whether their work is appropriate for Political Analysis, or to contact the Editors for advice.
Submissions that clear this initial stage are then assigned to one of the Co-Editors for initial review; some manuscripts may be rejected by the Co-Editors at this stage. In certain cases, the Co-Editors may ask a member of the journal’s Advisory Board or Editorial Board to serve as an ad hoc editor for particular papers. Assignment of an editor for a paper is typically done to match a paper to an editor with appropriate methodological expertise, and in some cases to mitigate potential conflicts of interest.
The editor of the paper will select reviewers for the paper; typically two but in some cases three reviews will be requested. Editors will make the initial decision after the reviews have been returned, and will attempt to make the initial decision as quickly as possible. A large fraction of papers that are reviewed by Political Analysis are rejected for further consideration. Of those that are not rejected after review, in most cases the editor will give the authors an opportunity to revise and resubmit their manuscript. Revise and resubmit offers are not a guarantee of eventual publication; authors will be given specific guidance from their editor about how to revise their manuscript for resubmission, and authors must provide a memorandum of changes and responses to reviews with their resubmission.
Most manuscripts that move forward towards production after the review stage receive a conditional acceptance. Conditionally-accepted papers are ones that do not need additional peer review, but which have some minor issues that the authors must resolve prior to final submission (typically editorial issues and the provision of replication data); the editor then makes a final decision after the final submission is received and the replication materials reviewed. All manuscripts that contain original simulations or analyses will be subjected to the journal’s replication requirement, and replication materials must be provided prior to the manuscript’s acceptance for publication. Papers that are accepted for publication must also meet the criteria discussed in the next section.
The decisions of the Editors of a manuscript are final, and will not (except for rare cases of factual error or procedural issues in the review process) be reconsidered. Political Analysis will not review manuscripts that have previously been rejected for further consideration by the journal in the past, without the express invitation of the Editors. Authors who attempt to resubmit manuscripts that have been rejected may be denied the opportunity to submit manuscripts to the journal.
ONLINE MANUSCRIPT SUBMISSION
Manuscripts should be submitted electronically, via the Political Analysis ScholarOne site. To submit an article, please visit: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pa.
Before submitting your Research Article or Letter, please ensure that you carefully read and adhere to all the guidelines and instructions to authors provided below. Manuscripts that do not conform to these guidelines may not be reviewed. Submission of an article implies that the work described has not been published previously, and that it is not currently being considered by another journal. Authors must also confirm that each author has seen and approved the contents of the submitted manuscript. Cambridge’s Ethical Standards for journals can be found here.
If you do not already have an account, click the "Register Here" link on the login page to create an account. For ScholarOne help, go to "Get Help Now" by clicking the "User Tutorials" link on the login page or the "Help" tab on any page in your Author Center. The "Get Help Now" page lists contact information for email and telephone customer support from ScholarOne Manuscripts. Click the orange "Author" button to find a detailed user guide for Authors. Follow the online prompts in your Author Center to submit your manuscript. Note all revisions require a point-by-point response to the previous decision letter and reviewer comments. Should you have any problems uploading LaTeX files, you may contact ScholarOne directly for assistance or you may upload an Adobe PDF for earlier versions of your manuscript. Once a manuscript receives conditional acceptance, the manuscript files must be uploaded in Microsoft Word or LaTeX format, along with a separate PDF version. Carefully read the guidelines for Conditionally Accepted Articles before uploading your final Research Article through the online system.
All corresponding authors are required to supply an ORCiD identifier as part of the submission process. Should your article be accepted for publication the ORCiD logo will be displayed next to your name on the opening page of the article. In the online version of the article this logo will link the user to your personal ORCiD homepage (where you can choose whether or not to display your publications).
If you don’t already have an ID, you’ll need to create one if you decide to submit a manuscript to Political Analysis. You can register for one directly from your user account on ScholarOne or via https://orcid.org/register. In each case, follow the on-screen instructions.
If you already have an ID, you can link it to your ScholarOne account after logging in as normal.
ORCiD provides a unique identifier for authors and, through integration in key research workflows such as publication and grant applications, offers the following benefits:
- Discoverability: ORCID increases the discoverability of your publications, by enabling smarter publisher systems and by helping readers to reliably find work that you’ve authored.
- Convenience: As more organisations use ORCID, providing your ID or using it to register for services will automatically link activities to your ORCID profile, and will save you re-keying information multiple times.
- Keeping track: Your ORCID profile is a neat place to record and display (if you choose) validated information about your research activities.
Authors should always strive to format their manuscript with the eventual reader in mind. Manuscripts that are overly long for their contribution, which are formatted inappropriately, which are unreadable or illegible, or which are not otherwise appropriate for review will in most cases be returned to the authors for reformatting (though in some cases the Editors may close the file without external review for some unreadable, illegible, or overly lengthy submissions).
Authors should in most cases attempt to position Tables, Figures and other graphical materials as they should appear embedded in the context of the text. Placement in the text makes it easier for reviewers and editors to read a manuscript. Authors are cautioned, however, that they should never make a Table, Figure or other graphic so small when embedded in the manuscript’s text that it cannot easily be read by a reader using a small screen (for example a tablet or laptop computer).
Materials that are not part of the original source file but which will be important for reviewers to have access to (for example, graphics that are referenced from within a LaTeX source file, appendices, computer code, or other supplementary materials) must be uploaded during the submissions process as “Supplementary Material (for peer review)”.
Authors should submit their Research Article or Letter as a Microsoft Word or LaTeX source file. Submissions should be in a format that makes the job of the referee as easy as possible. As a general rule, authors should provide a manuscript that is easy to read. This means that authors should generally submit manuscripts in 12pt font, that are double-spaced, and that use reasonable margins.
For Research Articles, all pages should be numbered, and manuscripts that are excessively long may be returned to the corresponding author prior to review. Footnotes at the bottom of the appropriate page, not endnotes, should be used. All sections should be numbered, with the Introduction being Section 1. While in general only one level of numbering will be needed, as in all cases, section and subsection numbering should be used to clarify argument, not to provide typographical consistency. Articles without sections should not number the introduction.
The initial submission may contain any material that might help the reviewers as an Appendix to the manuscript. In most cases this would be computer code. For example, papers that make extensive use of Monte Carlo simulations might provide the simulation code in an Appendix. Any such material should be clearly documented. If the manuscript moves successfully through the review process, most materials like these would not be published in the pages of the journal but would instead be provided online as Supplementary Materials or in the manuscript’s Dataverse replication materials.
Details of all funding sources for the work in question should be given in a separate section entitled "Funding" above the "Acknowledgements" section. The following rules should be followed: the full official funding agency name should be given, i.e. "National Institutes of Health," not "NIH"; grant numbers should be given in parentheses; multiple grant numbers should be separated by a comma; agencies should be separated by a semi-colon; no extra wording like "Funding for this work was provided by ..." should be used; where individuals need to be specified for certain sources of funding the following text should be added after the relevant agency or grant number "to [author initials]." An example is given here: National Institutes of Health (CB5453961 to C.S., DB645473 to M.H.); Funding Agency (hfygr667789).
- The sentence should begin: ‘This work was supported by …’
- The full official funding agency name should be given, i.e. ‘National Institutes of Health’, not ‘NIH’ (full RIN-approved list of UK funding agencies) Grant numbers should be given in brackets as follows: ‘[grant number xxxx]’
- Multiple grant numbers should be separated by a comma as follows: ‘[grant numbers xxxx, yyyy]’
- Agencies should be separated by a semi-colon (plus ‘and’ before the last funding agency)
- Where individuals need to be specified for certain sources of funding the following text should be added after the relevant agency or grant number 'to [author initials]'.
An example is given here: ‘This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health [AA123456 to C.S., BB765432 to M.H.]; and the Alcohol & Education Research Council [hfygr667789].'
Crossref Funding Data Registry
In order to meet your funding requirements, authors are required to name their funding sources, or state if there are none, during the submission process. For further information on this process or to find out more about the CHORUS initiative please click here.
The Use of Human Subjects
Papers that use data that required review by the author or author’s Institute Review Board (IRB) should state in the “Funding” section the relevant details regarding IRB approval for the research project.
Tables and Figures
(The Editors thank Neal Beck, Jeff Gill, Gary King and Jonathan Nagler for their assistance producing these guidelines. We have borrowed liberally from the report that they produced.)
Tables and Figures should be clear, easily legible, and quickly understood by the reader; those that require lengthy notes or text descriptions so that readers can understand the material presented therein are in need of simplification and redesign. That is, Tables and Figures should stand alone, and not require the reader to reference the text at all.
Thus, Tables and Figures should minimally contain:
- A title explaining the material concisely and clearly, with information about the outcome variable of other meaningful quantity of interest described.
- Information on the sample time period and number of observations included in the graphic.
- A note or notes that describe clearly what different cell entries or graphed material represents.
- Meaningful variable names or labels, which clearly indicate meaning.
- Clear and documented units of measurement.
- Legends and captions that provide additional information when necessary.
All numbers reported in a Table or Figure that contain estimation uncertainty should report that estimation uncertainty.
Authors should avoid the use of Tables or Figures that span pages. Multiple panels should only be used when there is important information that needs to be compared across the panels. When multiple panels are used in a Figure, the axes must be on identical scales for all panels so that the reader can easily compare the information across panels. Also, authors should avoid Tables or Figures that are so wide that they cannot be viewed in portrait mode.
Numbers in the text of articles and in tables should be reported with no more precision than they are measured and are substantively meaningful. There generally should not be more than 2 digits reported, unless there is good reason to do so. Variables should be scaled so that they have units that are meaningful to the reader, and so that they produce results that are simple to understand. Variables that have vastly different units should be rescaled so that estimations produced are on similar scales.
In general, the uncertainty of numerical estimates is best conveyed by confidence intervals or standard errors (or complete likelihood functions or posterior distributions). Regardless of whether the manuscript uses conventional null hypothesis testing, tables should not report p-values for tests of the null hypothesis that each coefficient is zero. However, in the case of design based experiments and related procedures (permutation tests, asymptotic approximations, etc.) p-values are appropriate and may be supplied. The use of “stars” to report different levels of statistical significance is also not acceptable. When discussing statistical reliability in the text, the author may state that statistical reliability for a given estimate crosses a conventional level, stating which one (the arbitrary standard values of 0.05, 0.01, 0.001), although the alternatives above are preferred.
When model coefficients are not easily interpretable by the reader, other more understandable quantities should be produced for the reader along with their estimation uncertainty. These include marginal effects, confidence or credible bounds in figures, or other measures of statistical reliability that can readily understood by readers. The manuscript should clearly state how these quantities of interest were produced or estimated, and the manuscript should focus the discussion on the derived and understandable quantities rather than the less interpretable original estimates.
All tables should provide appropriate summary statistics in meaningful units, not unitless quantities that range from 0 to 1, -1 to 1, etc. For example, quantities like the root mean squared error accompanied by the standard deviation of the outcome variable for regression results, or the expected percentage correctly predicted for limited dependent variable models. If the author wishes to present and discuss a unitless summary statistic (like the percentage of cases correctly predicted), they should also provide for readers a comparison (like the percentage of cases correctly predicted by a null model). Furthermore, all manuscripts should strive to provide for the reader the necessary materials so that they can independently judge the quality of the reported results.
In many cases, authors will find that there is more material they wish to report than will easily fit into a single manuscript of the typical length. In those cases (e.g., appendices, additional tables or figures, reports of robustness checks, and detailed discussion of data sources and manipulations), authors are strongly encouraged to produce supplementary materials for online-only publication. See Supplementary Material for more information.
For electronic transmission of papers to the editor and referees during the peer review process, all figures should be embedded in the electronic file. This is easily accomplished in Adobe Acrobat or Postscript; those submitting in other formats may submit figures as separate files if needed.
Authors should only put multiple panels into a single figure when doing so helps the reader understand an argument in the manuscript, typically in situations where the author wants the reader to compare results across the panels in the figure. In situations involving figures with multiple panels, authors must make sure that the vertical and horizontal axes of the panels are comparable across all panels of the figure.
All figures should be produced in portrait (not landscape). Authors can submit for review figures in color or in black and white. For manuscripts accepted for publication, all color figures will be published in color online at no cost. Authors may choose to publish figures in color in the print journal for $320 per figure. If you select this option, you will be contacted by CCC-Rightslink who act on behalf of Cambridge University Press to collect Author Charges.
Upon acceptance, all figures and tables should be supplied as separate files. If figures contain embedded text or labels, please use Verdana or Arial fonts (in that order of preference) where possible.
Resolution: Halftone images must be saved at 300 dpi at approximately the final size. Line drawings should be saved at 1000 dpi, or 1200 dpi if very fine line weights have been used. Combination figures must be saved at a minimum of 600 dpi. Cambridge Journals recommends that only TIFF, EPS or PDF formats are used for non-dynamic electronic artwork.
For more detailed guidance on the preparation of illustrations, pictures and graphs in electronic format please see the Cambridge Journals Artwork Guide.
Numbers and Variables
Numbers in the articles and tables should be reported with no more precision than they merit. Careful thought, not computer packages or the need to align tables, should govern how many significant digits are reported. Remember that significant digits are not the same thing as the total number of digits reported. Do not report more significant digits than the standard errors suggest.
Variables should be scaled so as to make the reporting of results as straightforward as possible.
All uncertain numbers should be reported with some indication of how uncertain they are. In general this is best conveyed by confidence intervals or standard errors.
The journal adheres to certain mathematical and notational standards. Attention to these standards at initial submission will make it easier to deal with conditionally accepted articles. Clarity of the mathematics, tables, and figures is as important a part of the presentation as is verbal clarity.
The author should strive to make the mathematical presentation as clear as possible. Different subareas use different types of notation; authors should strive to use the clearest notation consistent with their particular subarea. Choice of notation, like choice of word, is the prerogative of the author. As with choices about English sentences, choices about mathematical form should be made so as to clarify the presentation.
Authors of technical works should bear in mind that Political Analysis has a varied readership. Try to avoid formulae and specialized terminology in the introduction. Write crisply but clearly; Political Analysis will provide the space for you to explain any technical results. Good mathematical writing calls for the extra effort involved in revising and reworking the manuscript until it will be clear to most if not all of our readers. For a good test of the "readability" of a paper, the comments of a colleague in another specialty should alert you to problems in comprehension that our heterogeneous group of readers might face.
It should be remembered that equations are part of the text and that equal signs function as verbs. Thus, equations should contain appropriate punctuation. All symbols used in equations must be clearly defined.
The author should choose a notation that makes the argument easier to follow. In particular, a consistent notation should be chosen to represent different types of mathematical objects (e.g., matrices, scalars, and vectors). Authors are advised to adhere to the best conventions of notation unless there is a good reason not to do so. (If possible authors should attempt to use a markup language rather than hard coding typesetting specifics.)
The publisher will handle things like page breaking, white space, etc. Since we will strive for some consistency of notation, it would be better for authors to use constructs like \vector instead of \overarrow. Authors using LaTeX should use the amsmath package.
Equations should be numbered consecutively, with subnumbering (e.g., Equations 5a and 5b) used as appropriate. Appendix equations should be labelled A1, etc. Do not number equations by section.
Citations and References
Political Analysis uses the Chicago Manual of Style 16th ed., author-date system. All sources are cited within the text in parentheses by author’s last name and date of publication, with page numbers as appropriate: (Smith 2007, 65). Authors should consult the Chicago Manual of Style for Reference list citations. Below are examples of some common reference types.
Jacoby, J., D. Speller, and C. Kohn. 1974. “Brand Choice Behavior as a Function of Information Load.” Journal of Marketing Research 11 (1): 63–69.
Gerber, A., and D. Green. 2012. Field Experiments: Design, Analysis and Interpretation. New York: W. W. Norton Publishing.
Lau, R. R. 1995. “Information Search during an Election Campaign: Introducing a Process Tracing Methodology for Political Scientists.” In Political Judgment: Structure and Process, edited by M. Lodge and K. McGraw, 179–206. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Cary, B. 2008. “For the Brain, Remembering Is Like Reliving.” New York Times, September 4. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/05/science/05brain.html.
Teplin, L. A., G. M. McClelland, K. M. Abram, and J. J. Washburn. 2005. “Early Violent Death in Delinquent Youth: A Prospective Longitudinal Study.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, La Jolla, CA.
Dyer, L., and J. Ericksen. 1980. “Complexity-Based Agile Enterprises: Putting Self-Organizing Emergence to Work.” CAHRS Working Paper 08-01, School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cahrswp/473.
Borenstein, M., L. Hedges, J. Higgins, and H. Rothstein. 2005. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis, version 2. Englewood, NJ. http://www.meta-analysis.com.
Those who use LaTeX and BibTeX will find that either the harvard or natbib packages will serve them well. Users of harvard should use the apsr option. All users of BibTeX should use the chicago.bst bibliography style. While reference list formatting is only relevant after an article has been accepted, authors can simplify matters by using either the harvard or natbib package and chicago.bst as they begin writing.
All of the data (including original and archival data) used in a paper or letter must be appropriately cited. Citations to data must include information that will make it easy for readers to find the original data sources, and for those original sources to be consistently identified in the future. Data citations should not appear in the paper’s author note, acknowledgements, text, footnotes, tables, figures, or supplementary materials. Rather, data citations must appear in the paper’s reference list, and contain the name or title of the dataset, the author or authors, any version information, the date of creation of the version used in the paper, and most importantly a persistent data identifier (for example a DOI).
Bullock, Will, Kosuke Imai, Jacob Shapiro, "Replication data for: Statistical analysis of endorsement experiments: Measuring support for militant groups in Pakistan", http://hdl.handle.net/1902.1/14840 V5 [Version], September 5, 2011.
Monogan, Jamie, "Replication data for: A Case for Registering Studies of Political Outcomes: An Application in the 2010 House Elections", http://hdl.handle.net/1902.1/16470 V6 [Version], June 3, 2013.
These would be cited in the text of the paper as Bullock et al. (2011) and Monogan (2013) respectively.
Appendices and Supplementary Materials
In general, material that is not directly necessary to support the main argument or arguments in the paper should appear in Supplementary Materials. Authors are encouraged to take advantage of the ability to provide Supplementary Materials. Note that Supplementary Materials are different from replication materials for the Political Analysis Dataverse (see Making Data Available for Replication section).
Types of supplementary material may include, but are not limited to, appendices, additional tables or figures, reports of robustness checks, discussion of data sources and manipulations, videos, podcasts, and slideshows. As supplementary materials would be published online if the manuscript is eventually accepted, there are no limitations on the amount of material that can be submitted as supplementary materials.
All supplementary materials must be formatted and presented following all of the guidelines presented in this document. While supplementary materials are peer reviewed, they are not copyedited or typeset, so they should be supplied exactly as they are to appear online. As noted above, the supplementary material should be supplied as a separate file, and should also be referenced in the article.
Supplementary Materials will be forwarded to Cambridge University Press for posting on the journal’s website alongside the published article.
GUIDELINES FOR CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTED ARTICLES TO POLITICAL ANALYSIS
Organization of Copy and Electronic Files
After conditional acceptance, authors must provide electronic versions of the source files for their manuscript in Word or LaTeX format, and after those are available those files will be moved to the production office.
- Full title page (page 1)
- Reference list
- Endnotes or footnotes
- Figure legends
Authors using LaTeX should remember to supply all non-standard inputs required to produce a Postscript file. Authors should use standard fonts and try to avoid non-standard LaTeX packages.
Special care should be taken with the setting of the math, including such things as bolding vectors and matrices. LaTeX users will find the amssymb and bm packages of use.
Microsoft Word users must take special care to ensure that the mathematical notation conforms to standard.
Upon acceptance, all figures should be provided as separate files. (See above, under Manuscript Requirements, for guidance.)
Making Data Available for Replication
Political Analysis requires that authors make replication materials publicly available prior to publication. The data and code for your article must be uploaded to the Political Analysis Dataverse at http://dvn.iq.harvard.edu/dvn/dv/pan and cited in the final version of your manuscript. Below are instructions on how to do this. We will formally accept and then forward your final manuscript to production only after we have verified your compliance with this requirement.
Authors are encouraged to spend time preparing their replication materials, in particular developing usable documentation for eventual users of their replication package. A replication package should contain:
- 1. A brief “readme” file that summarizes the materials that are part of the replication package.
- 2. Well-documented and well-named code for producing the results reported in the tables and figures of the paper.
- 3. Specialized software packages, modules, or routines that are not a standard component of public-release, off-the-shelf software.
- 4. The data necessary to reproduce the results reported in the paper.
- 5. Documentation so that users know how to use the code and data to reproduce the results reported in the paper.
The replication materials will be released and permanently archived on the journal’s Dataverse. Thus, authors should bear in mind that code, documentation and data will be in the public domain, and thus all should be edited carefully. In particular, all data made available in replication packages should be made anonymous, and in general no individually-identifying information should be present in replication datasets. Thus, if your data require confidentiality, you should anonymize the relevant variables or cell values.
Replication materials for all analyses reported in the published version of the paper are subject to this requirement, including (but not limited to) quantitative results, simulations, and qualitative analyses. You are only required to provide enough information to replicate the results in your article, not all the data in your possession or even in your data set. However, the more information you provide, the more likely someone will follow upon your article, which would be good for you, your article, and PA. If you wish to request an exception to this policy, please contact the editors.
Political Analysis Dataverse instructions:
- 1. Go to http://dvn.iq.harvard.edu/dvn/dv/pan and click "Add Data" link on upper right box.
- 2. Enter cataloguing fields to describe your data file(s), such as title, author name(s), abstract, year, citation to article, etc.
- 3. Save your the cataloging information, click “Select Files to Add” and upload your data files, code, documentation, and an explanation of what each of the files is. We recommend you upload tabular data files in one of the formats Dataverse presently recognizes, in which case it will process the files and provide additional formats to the end user.
- 4. After all the files are uploaded, click "Submit for Review."
- 5. You will receive the citation to your replication data set when you upload it. Please insert the complete citation in your manuscript’s references, and refer to this in both your author’s note and in a footnote in your manuscript around where you first describe your data or analysis.
- 6. When you have completed this process please email confirmation to firstname.lastname@example.org.
After uploading the replication materials, they will be reviewed for completeness and eventually released for public use on the Political Analysis Dataverse page. Authors are encouraged to return to their study’s Dataverse entry after their paper has been published, and to update the Dataverse entry.
Political Analysis encourages authors to consider preregistering their studies, when appropriate. Preregistration is the act of archiving a research design with a third party prior to observing a project’s outcome variables. Releasing precise information about hypotheses, how they will be tested, and any pre-outcome data all serve to raise the level of transparency in the project. The goal of preregistering a study is to communicate research goals and strategies as clearly as possible before the outcome variable is observed, allowing readers to distinguish between analyses specified ex ante from those crafted as a function of outcomes.
Research designs should be deposited prior to analysis with a registry that: is open to all prospective registrants; requires that at minimum researchers provide a description of the intended research, a description of hypotheses or other conclusions that the research seeks to examine, a description of data sources including, as applicable, site, subjects, and timeframe, a description of the methods to be used, a description of whether outcomes have been realized prior to registration, and contact information for a lead researcher; records the date and time of all registered research designs and subsequent modifications of designs; provides all registered designs with a unique identifier; makes metadata publicly and freely accessible; and can provide journals with access to complete data at the time of article submission, and to the public within at least two years of completion of data collection.
At this point in time, we encourage the use of the Political Science Registered Studies Dataverse (http://thedata.harvard.edu/dvn/dv/registration); the American Economic Association’s RCT Registry (https://www.socialscienceregistry.org); the Experiments in Governance and Politics [egap] registry (http://e-gap.org/design-registration); or the Registry for International Development Impact Evaluations [RIDIE] (http://ridie.3ieipact.org).
A link to the preregistered study should be provided to the editors upon submission of the paper. The author should indicate if they would like reviewers to be able to review the preregistered information, and whether or not the preregistered information has been made anonymous. Preregistered studies also should include a link to the preregistered information in the final printed article, in the same footnote as the link to the registration data. Authors should discuss in detail any deviations from the registered design, their rationale for those deviations, and the implications of these deviations on the reported results.
Green Open Access / Author Self-Archiving Policy
Many funding bodies now require that authors make a version of their work available in an institutional or other repository. This is commonly known as Green Open Access or author self-archiving.
Political Analysis has a Green Open Access policy that enables authors to meet these requirements. For more information about which versions of your article you can archive and where, see our Green Open Access policy for journals. These details are also available in the copyright license form for the journal.
License to Publish
Upon receipt of accepted manuscripts at Cambridge University Press, authors will be invited to complete a copyright license form.
Please note that by submitting an article for publication you confirm that you are the corresponding/submitting author and that Cambridge University Press may retain your email address for the purpose of communicating with you about the article. You agree to notify Cambridge University Press immediately if your details change. If your article is accepted for publication Cambridge University Press will contact you using the email address you have used in the registration process. Please note that Cambridge University Press does not retain copies of rejected articles.
Open Access for Authors
Political Analysis authors have the option to publish their paper under a Gold Open Access model, which enables readers to freely access and re-distribute the paper immediately upon publication. This option is presented to authors in the copyright license form after the article has been accepted for publication.
The cost of publishing Gold Open Access are paid through an article processing charge (APC) by the author, typically as a result of funding obtained from a funding body or institution.
The APC for Political Analysis is:
- £1,925 / $3,070
For more detail about Gold Open Access, what APCs cover and the payment process, see our Open Access information pages.
Gold Open Access articles are published under Creative Commons licenses, which provide the legal framework by which readers can access, distribute and re-use the article. Political Analysis gives authors the choice of applying any of the following Creative Commons licenses to their work, each of which grants different rights to readers in terms of the commercial use of the work and the ability to make derivative versions:
- CC-BY (Creative Commons Attribution License)
- CC-BY-NC-ND (Creative Commons Non-Commercial No Derivatives License)
- CC-BY-NC-SA (Creative Commons Non-Commercial Share-a-like)
In each case, attribution must be given to the author and if derivative versions are made of the work changes must be indicated. For more detail about these licenses and their implications, see our Open Access information pages.
Permissions for Illustrations and Figures
In order to reproduce any third party material, including figures or tables, in an article authors must obtain permission from the copyright holder and be compliant with any requirements the copyright holder may have pertaining to this reuse. Guidelines on permissions can be found at the Cambridge Journals Artwork Guide. A template permissions request letter can be found at the end of the above guide.
Language editing, if your first language is not English, to ensure that the academic content of your paper is fully understood by journal editors and reviewers is optional. Language editing does not guarantee that your manuscript will be accepted for publication. For further information on this service, please click here. Several specialist language editing companies offer similar services and you can also use any of these. Authors are liable for all costs associated with such services.
Special Issues and Symposia
Individuals interested in proposing a special issue or a symposium on a particular topic must contact the Editors. Political Analysis publishes both special issues (entire issues of the journal based on particular topics), as well as symposia (collections of papers on a topic) and mini-symposia (usually one or two papers along with invited responses and commentary). All research articles published as part of a special issue or symposium follow the same submissions and review procedures as research articles that are not part of special issues of symposia.
Periodically Political Analysis will make a “virtual issue” available on the journal’s website. These “virtual issues” are simple collections of previously-published papers from the journal; typically each virtual issue will be accompanied by an introductory essay written by the editor of the virtual issue.
INFORMATION FOR REVIEWERS
Political Analysis, like most academic research journals, replies upon the timely, unbiased, and accurate evaluation of manuscripts from peer reviewers. As our review process is single-blind, reviewers should not identify themselves as a reviewer to authors of a paper they review for the journal, no matter what the final decision regarding the paper.
Reviewers should not accept the invitation to review a manuscript for the journal, unless they can undertake the review in a timely manner (usually within two or three weeks). If the reviewer perceives they have a potential conflict of interest that is known when the invitation to review is received, they should notify the editors. If a potential conflict of interest arises during the review process, or immediately thereafter, the reviewer should notify the editors. Reviewers should always feel comfortable notifying the editors if any potential conflicts of interest arise; it may also be useful for reviewers to consult the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) “Cope Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers” (March 2013, v1)
As a leading publisher of scholarly journals, Cambridge University Press is committed to meeting high standards of ethical behavior at all stages of the publication process. Our ethical standards and procedures set out general expectations for authors, editors, reviewers, publishers and partners.
Cambridge University Press is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), an organization that provides advice to editors and publishers on all aspects of publications ethics and how to handle cases of misconduct.