How To Be a Peer Reviewer
A Guide for Recent and Soon-to-be PhDs
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12377575 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Beth Miller (University of Missouri–Kansas City, corresponding author), Beth A Miller (0000-0002-0241-654X), Jon Pevehouse (0000-0003-1761-0422, University of Wisconsin–Madison), Ron Rogowski (University of California, Los Angeles), Dustin Tingley (0000-0002-2216-6293, Harvard University Press), Rick K Wilson (0000-0003-4278-7721, Rice University), Rick Wilson |
| Year | 2013 |
| Volume | 46 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 120-123 |
| Publication date | 2013-01-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | PS Political Science & Politics (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1049-0965 • E-ISSN: 1537-5935 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/s104909651200128x |
| OpenAlex | W2138983901 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 5 |
| References cited | 5 |
Peer review is central to political science. In this article we collect the ideas of journal editors in political science and several recent PhDs, who met as a panel at the 2011 American Political Science Association Annual Meeting to discuss the principles of the review process. This includes why reviewing is important to the development of one's own scholarship but also offers some nuts and bolts on reviewing
Association (psychology · Engineering ethics · Nuts and bolts · Peer review · Political science · Politics · Process (computing · Public relations · Scholarship · Computer Science · Engineering · Law · Political Science Research and Education · Psychology
| Citations per year | 0.38 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2013 - 2023 (11) |
| Highly cited | No |