Peer Reviewing in Political Science
New Survey Results
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 7944910 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Paul A Djupe (0000-0001-6944-429X, Denison University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2015 |
| Volume | 48 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 346-352 |
| Publication date | 2015-04-01 |
| 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/s1049096514002315 |
| OpenAlex | W2167052341 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 10 |
Charges are frequently leveled that the peer-review system is broken, and reviewers are overburdened with requests. But this specific charge has been made in the absence of data about the actual reviewing loads of political scientists. I report the results of a recent survey asking a random sample of about 600 APSA members with PhDs what their reviewing loads are like and what their beliefs are about the value of peer reviewing to them and others. Article reviewing loads correspond to rank, institution, and scholarly productivity in predictable ways. At PhD-granting institutions, assistant professors averaged 5.5, associate professors averaged 7.0, and full professors averaged 8.3 in the past year; everyone else averaged just under 3 reviews a year. To recognize the value we place on peer reviewing, we need a system that collects data on who reviews and presents them in a format usable by scholars and their relevant evaluation bodies
Economic growth · Economics · Institution · Multimedia · Peer review · Physics · Political science · Politics · Productivity · Public relations · Statistics · USable · Computer Science · Innovative Teaching Methodologies in Social Sciences · Law · Mathematics · Political Science Research and Education
Politics and Religion’s Resilience During the Covid-19 Pandemic
Explaining Gender in the Journals
Does Peer Review Identify the Best Papers? A Simulation Study of Editors, Reviewers, and the Scientific Publication Process
Choosing Reviewers
Putting personality in context
Motivations of Novice and Experienced Female Chinese Applied Linguistics Researchers to Participate in Peer Reviews
What to do for reviewer two
A study of reviewing at the International Journal of Osteoarchaeology
Dear Reviewer 2
Benefit Versus Risk Deliberations on Revisions, Corrections or Rejections of Manuscript Submissions
| Citations per year | 1.11 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2017 - 2025 (9) |
| Highly cited | No |