Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T14:52:56.926Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Notes from the Editor

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2007

Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The cover graphic for this issue symbolizes the process of mourning, in recognition, as per our standard practice, of the theme of the issue's lead article. By unhappy coincidence, that theme is doubly appropriate, for it also marks the recent passing of Nelson W. Polsby, the editor of the Review from 1970 to 1976. A larger-than-life figure, innovative scholar, sage political commentator, indefatigable conversationalist, and beloved mentor, Nelson Polsby was truly one of a kind – sometimes cantankerous but unfailingly gregarious and never quite able, despite what sometimes seemed to be his best efforts, to disguise his essential kindness. He will be – already is – missed.

Type
NOTES FROM THE EDITOR
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 101 , Issue 2 , May 2007 , pp. v - ix
Copyright
© 2007 by the American Political Science Association

IN THIS ISSUE1

Editorial Assistant Elizabeth Franker assisted in the preparation of these notes.

The cover graphic for this issue symbolizes the process of mourning, in recognition, as per our standard practice, of the theme of the issue's lead article. By unhappy coincidence, that theme is doubly appropriate, for it also marks the recent passing of Nelson W. Polsby, the editor of the Review from 1970 to 1976. A larger-than-life figure, innovative scholar, sage political commentator, indefatigable conversationalist, and beloved mentor, Nelson Polsby was truly one of a kind – sometimes cantankerous but unfailingly gregarious and never quite able, despite what sometimes seemed to be his best efforts, to disguise his essential kindness. He will be – already is – missed.

In “Pericles at Gettysburg and Ground Zero: Tragedy, Patriotism, and Public Mourning,” the article that opens this issue, Simon Stow operates in the long-standing tradition of using political theory to enrich our understanding of important contemporary events. Stow draws upon an expanse of theoretical material and an array of occurrences, taking us back to Thucydides, then Plato, jumping forward to Lincoln, and finally making a poignant connection to contemporary America, referencing and synthesizing an impressive range of recent scholarship along the way. Both theoretically rich and politically pertinent, Stow's examination of the political implications of public mourning is essential reading for specialists and non-specialists alike.

Also operating at the intersection of political theory and contemporary political commentary is Benjamin A. Kleinerman's “Can the Prince Really Be Tamed? Executive Prerogative, Popular Apathy, and the Constitutional Frame in Locke's Second Treatise.” The propensity of the masses to acquiesce in the executive's exercise of discretionary powers is not only an abstract theoretical problem within the Second Treatise, but is also, and perhaps more importantly, a major political problem today. The result is an eye-opening and fertile new perspective on Lockean constitutionalism. Kleinerman's provocative analysis should be of serious interest to a broad range of political scientists.

For theorists committed to the cause of rationalism, is the way forward found by looking back to the ancients? In “Reopening the Quarrel between the Ancients and the Moderns: Leo Strauss's Critique of Hobbes's ‘New Political Science,’” Devin Stauffer answers that question in the affirmative. Examining how Strauss began to develop his view of modern versus ancient political philosophy, Stauffer teases out deficiencies of modern political thought that Strauss identified and which illuminate the path back to the ancients. Given the continuing controversy surrounding Straussian analysis, this article is likely to be widely read by those with even a tangential interest in political philosophy.

The growing presence of Muslims in non-Muslim liberal democracies raises urgent questions about the extent to which multicultural societies can accommodate diverse identities and interests and about whether cultural, ethnic, and religious minority groups can perceive the majority-oriented political and social order in liberal democracies as legitimate. Displaying deep understanding of Islamic legal thought, Andrew March argues in “Islamic Foundations for a Social Contract in non-Muslim Liberal Democracies” that it is indeed possible—on Islamic grounds—for Muslims to affirm political obligation and loyalty to a non-Muslim state. March's analysis contributes significantly to the literature on multiculturalism and provides an invaluable starting point for thinking about the potential for culturally plural communities to develop harmoniously in liberal democracies.

In “What's at Stake in the American Empire Debate” Daniel H. Nexon and Thomas Wright do more than answer a question that consumes academic and popular debate. Through a unique combination of social network theory, international relations theory, and the historiography of empires, they develop an ideal type of the structural characteristics of empires. The foundation of the article in highly original argument, analysis, and evidence leads to an intriguing, if controversial, answer to the question of whether or not there exists a modern American empire.

From the outer reaches of American power we turn to the inner workings of American politics. In “When Do Elections Encourage Ideological Rigidity?,” Brandice Canes-Wrone and Kenneth W. Shotts contend that elections provide perverse incentives to representatives. In the best of worlds, we would expect elected officials to use the sum of their information to make policy decisions. Yet the need to commit to more rigid positions in order to get elected in the first place can lead representatives to forgo their better judgment in favor of policy consistency and their public image. This article contributes importantly to our understanding of the extent to which and the manner in which voter preferences affect democratic outcomes.

When members of the U.S. House of Representatives stand for re-election, they rarely are defeated. In “Candidate Quality, the Personal Vote, and the Incumbency Advantage in Congress,” Jamie L. Carson, Erik J. Engstrom, and Jason M. Roberts use data on late nineteenthcentury elections to try to account for the growth and persistence of the incumbency advantage. They isolate unique features of the period, in particular party control of ballot access, to account for the advantage to incumbents. However, because this measure of institutional control is unlikely to recur today, Carson and his colleagues suggest that researchers should look to the substance of incumbent candidates rather than to institutional features in trying to account for the incumbency advantage.

Continuing on the incumbency theme, Sanford C. Gordon, Gregory A. Huber, and Dimitri Landa view incumbency effects through the lens of the relationship between voters and challengers. In “Challenger Entry and Voter Learning,” Gordon and his colleagues posit that challengers are more likely to enter a race when incumbents appear to be failing in office, at which point voters become politically informed to forestall entry by an inferior challenger. This in turn changes the opportunity structure for challengers of different levels of competence. This model opens up new avenues for formal and empirical explorations of the nature and structure of electoral competition.

To whom or what are Supreme Court justices responsive? In “Party, Policy, Or Duty: Why Does the Supreme Court Invalidate Federal Statutes?,” Thomas M. Keck interrelates the competing pressures that justices face as policy proponents, partisan appointees, and defenders of their institution. The result is a plea for scholars to pursue more broadly integrative lines of research aimed at clarifying how these factors interact rather than pitting particular motivations against one another to determine which one wins the race that the researcher has devised.

To what extent are positions on issues that are ostensibly non-racial nonetheless shaped by racial cues? In “When Race Matters and When it Doesn't: Racial Group Differences in Response to Racial Cues,” Ismail K. White gauges the effects of explicitly racial, implicitly racial, and non-racial verbal cues on position-taking on a non-racial issue. White's analyses reveal distinctive differences between blacks and whites in their responses to racial priming cues, suggesting that the process and dynamics of attitude activation may differ substantially between these two groups. These findings further reflect the promise of experimental data to add to our understanding of racial and political attitudes and behavior.

Finally, the scene shifts to a very different setting, halfway around the world from the U.S. Here the question is whether, in the absence of formal democratic procedures and safeguards, the public or portions thereof hold local officials accountable. In “Solidary Groups, Informal Accountability, and Local Public Goods Provision in Rural China,” Lily L. Tsai argues that the answer is a qualified yes – qualified because not just any group of people will do; the solidary group must be both embedded and encompassing in order to exert normative pressure on local officials effectively. Tsai's analysis speaks to the key question of political accountability in the absence of democratic institutions and provides not only a novel theoretical approach, but also an incisive and thought-provoking answer.

INSTRUCTIONS TO CONTRIBUTORS

General Considerations

The APSR strives to publish scholarly research of exceptional merit, focusing on important issues and demonstrating the highest standards of excellence in conceptualization, exposition, methodology, and craftsmanship. Because the APSR reaches a diverse audience of scholars and practitioners, authors must demonstrate how their analysis illuminates a significant research problem, or answers an important research question, of general interest in political science. For the same reason, authors must strive for a presentation that will be understandable to as many scholars as possible, consistent with the nature of their material.

The APSR publishes original work. Therefore, authors should not submit articles containing tables, figures, or substantial amounts of text that have already been published or are forthcoming in other places, or that have been included in other manuscripts submitted for review to book publishers or periodicals (including on-line journals). In many such cases, subsequent publication of this material would violate the copyright of the other publisher. The APSR also does not consider papers that are currently under review by other journals or duplicate or overlap with parts of larger manuscripts that have been submitted to other publishers (including publishers of both books and periodicals). Submission of manuscripts substantially similar to those submitted or published elsewhere, or as part of a book or other larger work, is also strongly discouraged. If you have any questions about whether these policies apply in your particular case, you should discuss any such publications related to a submission in a cover letter to the Editor. You should also notify the Editor of any related submissions to other publishers, whether for book or periodical publication, that occur while a manuscript is under review by the APSR and which would fall within the scope of this policy. The Editor may request copies of related publications.

If your manuscript contains quantitative evidence and analysis, you should describe your procedures in sufficient detail to permit reviewers to understand and evaluate what has been done and, in the event that the article is accepted for publication, to permit other scholars to carry out similar analyses on other data sets. For example, for surveys, at the least, sampling procedures, response rates, and question wordings should be given; you should calculate response rates according to one of the standard formulas given by the American Association for Public Opinion Research, Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys (Ann Arbor, MI: AAPOR, 2000). This document is available on the Internet at <http://www.aapor.org/default.asp?page = survey_methods/standards_and_best_practices/standard_definitions>. For experiments, provide full descriptions of experimental protocols, methods of subject recruitment and selection, subject payments and debriefing procedures, and so on. Articles should be self-contained, so you should not simply refer readers to other publications for descriptions of these basic research procedures.

Please indicate variables included in statistical analyses by capitalizing the first letter in the variable name and italicizing the entire variable name the first time~each is mentioned in the text. You should also use the same names for variables in text and tables and, wherever possible, should avoid the use of acronyms and computer abbreviations when discussing variables in the text. All variables appearing in tables should have been mentioned in the text and the reason for their inclusion discussed.

As part of the review process, you may be asked to submit additional documentation if procedures are not sufficiently clear; the review process works most efficiently if such information is given in the initial submission. If you advise readers that additional information is available, you should submit printed copies of that information with the manuscript. If the amount of this supplementary information is extensive, please inquire about alternate procedures.

The APSR uses a double-blind review process. You should follow the guidelines for preparing anonymous copies in the Specific Procedures section below.

Manuscripts that are largely or entirely critiques or commentaries on previously published APSR articles will be reviewed using the same general procedures as for other manuscripts, with one exception. In addition to the usual number of reviewers, such manuscripts will also be sent to the scholar(s) whose work is being criticized, in the same anonymous form that they are sent to reviewers. Comments from the original author(s) to the Editor will be invited as a supplement to the advice of reviewers. This notice to the original author(s) is intended (1) to encourage review of the details of analyses or research procedures that might escape the notice of disinterested reviewers; (2) to enable prompt publication of critiques by supplying criticized authors with early notice of their existence and, therefore, more adequate time to reply; and (3) as a courtesy to criticized authors. If you submit such a manuscript, you should therefore send as many additional copies of their manuscripts as will be required for this purpose.

Manuscript Formatting

Manuscripts should not be longer than 45 pages including text, all tables and figures, notes, references, and appendices. This page size guideline is based on the U.S. standard 8.5 × 11-inch paper; if you are submitting a manuscript printed on longer paper, you must adjust accordingly. The font size must be at least 11 points for all parts of the paper, including notes and references. The entire paper, including notes and references, must be double-spaced, with the sole exception of tables for which double-spacing would require a second page otherwise not needed. All pages should be numbered in one sequence, and text should be formatted using a normal single column no wider than 6.5 inches, as is typical for manuscripts (rather than the double-column format of the published version of the APSR), and printed on one side of the page only. Include an abstract of no more than 150 words. The APSR style of embedded citations should be used, and there must be a separate list of references at the end of the manuscript. Do not use notes for simple citations. These specifications are designed to make it easier for reviewers to read and evaluate papers. Papers not adhering to these guidelines are subject to being rejected without review.

For submission and review purposes, you may place footnotes at the bottom of the pages instead of using endnotes, and you may locate tables and figures (on separate pages and only one to a page) approximately where they fall in the text. However, manuscripts accepted for publication must be submitted with endnotes, and with tables and figures on separate pages at the back of the manuscript with standard indications of text placement, e.g., [Table~3 about here]. In deciding how to format your initial submission, please consider the necessity of making these changes if your paper is accepted. If your paper is accepted for publication, you will also be required to submit camera-ready copy of graphs or other types of figures. Instructions will be provided.

For specific formatting style of citations and references, please refer to articles in the most recent issue of the APSR. For unusual style or formatting issues, you should consult the latest edition of The Chicago Manual of Style. For review purposes, citations and references need not be in specific APSR format, although some generally accepted format should be used, and all citation and reference information should be provided.

Specific Procedures

Please follow these specific procedures for submission:

  1. You are invited to submit a list of scholars who would be appropriate reviewers of your manuscript. The Editor will refer to this list in selecting reviewers, though there obviously can be no guarantee that those you suggest will actually be chosen. Do not list anyone who has already commented on your paper or an earlier version of it, or any of your current or recent collaborators, institutional colleagues, mentors, students, or close friends.
  2. Submit five copies of manuscripts and a diskette or CD containing a pdf file of the anonymous version of the manuscript. If you cannot save the manuscript as a pdf, just send in the diskette or CD with the word-processed version. Please ensure that the paper and diskette or CD versions you submit are identical; the diskette or CD version should be of the anonymous copy (see below). Please review all pages of all copies to make sure that all copies contain all tables, figures, appendices, and bibliography mentioned in the manuscript and that all pages are legible. Label the diskette or CD clearly with the (first) author's name and the title of the manuscript (in abridged form if need be), and identify the word processing program and operating system. If you are unable to create a diskette or CD, please note this in your submission, and you will be asked to e-mail the appropriate file.
  3. To comply with the APSR's procedure of double-blind peer reviews, only one of the five copies submitted should be fully identified as to authorship and four should be in anonymous format.
  4. For anonymous copies, if it is important to the development of the paper that your previous publications be cited, please do this in a way that does not make the authorship of the submitted paper obvious. This is usually most easily accomplished by referring to yourself in the third person and including normal references to the work cited in the list of references. In no circumstances should your prior publications be included in the bibliography in their normal alphabetical location but with your name deleted. Assuming that text references to your previous work are in the third person, you should include full citations as usual in the bibliography. Please discuss the use of other procedures to render manuscripts anonymous with the Editor prior to submission. You should not thank colleagues in notes or elsewhere in the body of the paper or mention institution names, web page addresses, or other potentially identifying information. All acknowledgments must appear on the title page of the identified copy only. Manuscripts that are judged not anonymous will not be reviewed.
  5. The first page of the four anonymous copies should contain only the title and an abstract of no more than 150 words. The first page of the identified copy should contain (a) the name, academic rank, institutional affiliation, and contact information (mailing address, telephone, fax, e-mail address) for all authors; (b) in the case of multiple authors, an indication of the author who will receive correspondence; (c) any relevant citations to your previous work that have been omitted from the anonymous copies; and (d) acknowledgments, including the names of anyone who has provided comments on the manuscript. If the identified copy contains any unique references or is worded differently in any way, please mark this copy with “Contains author citations” at the top of the first page.

No copies of submitted manuscripts can be returned.

ELECTRONIC ACCESS TO THE APSR

Back issues of the APSR are available in several electronic formats and through several vendors. Except for the last three years (as an annually “moving wall”), back issues of the APSR beginning with Volume 1, Number 1 (November 1906), are available on-line through JSTOR (http://www.jstor.org/). At present, JSTOR's complete journal collection is available only via institutional subscription, e.g., through many college and university libraries. For APSA members who do not have access to an institutional subscription to JSTOR, individual subscriptions to its APSR content are available. Please contact Member Services at APSA for further information, including annual subscription fees.

Individual members of the American Political Science Association can access recent issues of the APSR and PS through the APSA website (www.apsanet.org) with their username and password. Individual nonmember access to the online edition will also be available, but only through institutions that hold either a print-plus-electronic subscription or an electronic-only subscription, provided the institution has registered and activated its online subscription.

Full text access to current issues of both the APSR and PS is also available on-line by library subscription from a number of database vendors. Currently, these include University Microfilms Inc. (UMI) (via its CD-ROMs General Periodicals Online and Social Science Index and the on-line database ProQuest Direct), Online Computer Library Center (OCLC) (through its on-line database First Search as well as on CD-ROMs and magnetic tape), and the Information Access Company (IAC) (through its products Expanded Academic Index, InfoTrac, and several on-line services [see below]). Others may be added from time to time.

The APSR is also available on databases through six online services: Datastar (Datastar), Business Library (Dow Jones), Cognito (IAC), Encarta Online Library (IAC), IAC Business (Dialog), and Newsearch (Dialog).

The editorial office of the APSR is not involved in the subscription process to either JSTOR for back issues or the other vendors for current issues. Please contact APSA, your reference librarian, or the database vendor for further information about availability.

BOOK REVIEWS

The APSR no longer contains book reviews. As of 2003, book reviews have moved to Perspectives on Politics. All books for review should be sent to the Perspectives on Politics Book Review Editor, Jeffrey C. Isaac. The address is Professor Jeffrey C. Isaac, Review Editor, Perspectives on Politics, Department of Political Science, Woodburn Hall, 1100 E. 7th St., Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405-7110. E-mail: .

If you are the author of a book you wish to be considered for review, please ask your publisher to send a copy to the Perspectives on Politics Book Review Editors per the mailing instructions above. If you are interested in reviewing books for Perspectives on Politics, please send your vita to the Book Review Editors; you should not ask to review a specific book.

OTHER CORRESPONDENCE

The American Political Science Association's address, telephone, and fax are 1527 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, (202) 483-2512 (voice), and (202) 483-2657 (fax). E-mail: . Please direct correspondence as follows.

  • Information, including news and notes, for PS:
  • Dr. Robert J-P. Hauck, Editor, PS
  • E-mail:

Circulation and subscription correspondence (domestic claims for nonreceipt of issues must be made within four months of the month of publication; overseas claims, within eight months):

EXPEDITING REQUESTS FOR COPYING APSR AND PS ARTICLES FOR CLASS USE AND OTHER PURPOSES

Class Use

The Comprehensive Publisher Photocopy Agreement between APSA and the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) permits bookstores and copy centers to receive expedited clearance to copy articles from the APSR and PS in compliance with the Association's policies and applicable fees. The general fee for articles is 75 cents per copy. However, current Association policy levies no fee for the first 10 copies of a printed artide, whether in course packs or on reserve. Smaller classes that rely heavily on articles (i.e., upper-level undergraduate and graduate classes) can take advantage of this provision, and faculty ordering 10 or fewer course packs should bring it to the attention of course pack providers. APSA policy also permits free use of the electronic library reserve, with no limit on the number of students who can access the electronic reserve. Both large and small classes that rely on these articles can take advantage of this provision. The CCC's address, telephone, and fax are 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, (978) 750-8400 (voice), and (978) 750-4474 (fax). This agreement pertains only to the reproduction and distribution of APSA materials as hard copies (e.g., photocopies, microfilm, and microfiche).

The Association of American Publishers (AAP) has created a standardized form for college faculty to submit to a copy center or bookstore to request copyrighted material for course packs. The form is available through the CCC, which will handle copyright permissions.

APSA also has a separate agreement pertaining to CCC's Academic E-Reserve Service. This agreement allows electronic access for students and instructors of a designated class at a designated institution for a specified article or set of articles in electronic format. Access is by password for the duration of a class.

Please contact your librarian, the CCC, or the APSA Reprints Department for further information.

APSR Authors

If you are the author of an APSR article, you may use your article in course packs or other printed materials without payment of royalty fees and you may post it at personal or institutional web sites as long as the APSA copyright notice is included.

Other Uses of APSA-Copyrighted Materials

For any further copyright issues, please contact the APSA Reprints Department.

INDEXING

Articles appearing in the APSR before June 1953 were indexed in The Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature. Current issues are indexed in ABC Pol Sci; America, History and Life 1954–; Book Review Index; Current Contents: Social and Behavioral Sciences; EconLit; Energy Information Abstracts; Environmental Abstracts; Historical Abstracts; Index of Economic Articles; Information Service Bulletin; International Bibliography of Book Reviews of Scholarly Literature in the Humanities and Social Sciences; International Bibliography of Periodical Literature in the Humanities and Social Sciences; International Index; International Political Science Abstracts; the Journal of Economic Literature; Periodical Abstracts; Public Affairs; Public Affairs Information Service International Recently Published Articles; Reference Sources; Social Sciences and Humanities Index; Social Sciences Index; Social Work Research and Abstracts; and Writings on American History. Some of these sources may be available in electronic form through local public or educational libraries. Microfilm of the APSR, beginning with Volume 1, and the index of the APSR through 1969 are available through University Microfilms Inc., 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106 (www.umi.com). The Cumulative Index to the American Political Science Review, Volumes 63 to 89: 1969–95, is available through the APSA.