Home  › Publications  › APSA Journals  › Perspectives on Politics  › Philosophy & Submission Guidelines  › Perspectives Book Reviews

Perspectives on Politics is the American Political Science Association’s official venue for book reviews, a function inherited from the American Political Science Review when the journal was founded in 2002. It reviews approximately 250 books every year. Over the years, the APSA book review format has undergone a number of changes, and the format inherited by Perspectives centered on four main subfield categories: political theory, American politics, comparative politics, and international relations. This continues to be the basic format for most book reviews. At the same time, in recent years, the review has instituted a number of other formats for reviewing and discussing books. These formats will continue to be featured in the journal. In addition, the journal will from time to time feature special theme review sections, such as a section of reviews on China or gender or civil war. Increasingly, much of the best work in political science straddles the four basic subfields or fits uneasily within any of them, and these categories have thus come to be regarded by many scholars as anachronistic. The editorial board is thus in the process of considering a more fundamental reconsideration of the four basic subfield headings.

To clarify, the review section currently features the following formats:

Review essays address small set of books, articles, or other “texts” in order to consider how these materials illuminate a larger conceptual, political, or normative concern. Such essays typically bring a range of texts into dialogue with one another, identifying both thematic commonalities and methodological differences. Review essays vary in length, averaging about 8,000 words (10 journal pages). Review essays are developed in consultation with the editor-in-chief, and are typically solicited by the editor-in-chief.

Symposia bring together a range of commentators to discuss a common theme or text. Most symposia are organized around one or more recently published books, which are viewed as occasions for reflecting on broader issues (such as inequality, terrorism, civic engagement, racism, or civil liberty). Symposia are solicited and developed by the editor-in-chief, in consultation and collaboration with the editorial board. Perspectives will no longer accept unsolicited symposia for publication through the Editorial Manager system.

Critical dialogues typically bring into conversation two invited authors who engage similar topics or themes from different theoretical, methodological, or subfield perspectives. Each author will review the other’s book, and then respond to the other’s review. These exchanges are designed to invite authors to reach beyond their comfort zones and to constructively engage different perspectives, including perspectives that normal disciplinary markers often keep segregated from one another.

Finally, book reviews typically review one, two, or three books. Perspectives book reviews seek to relate books under review to broader scholarly literatures and political debates, and thus help nurture a common literary culture among political scientists. They place a premium on clear writing for a broad scholarly readership.

Book review editorial operations are now incorporated within the broader operations of Perspectives and housed within the journal’s main office. The entire journal is now edited by Editor-in-Chief Jeffrey C. Isaac at Indiana University.

While the front end of the journal accepts only research articles submitted for peer review to the Editorial Manager online system, the review section does not accept unsolicited reviews, nor does it accept requests to review particular books. All reviews, review essays, and symposia are commissioned and edited by the editor-in-chief.

Review operations are not managed using the Editorial Manager online system.

All communication regarding reviews should thus continue to be sent to reviews@indiana.edu.

Since Perspectives is a general readership journal of the political science discipline, it is particularly important that reviews situate the books under review in the context of the theoretical debates in political science to which the books seek to contribute. This helps make clear the book’s relevance to the widest possible audience of scholarly readers of Perspectives. While we expect reviewers to deploy their scholarly expertise in reviewing books in their subfields, we also hope that all Perspectives book reviews will be readable for and interesting to all political scientists, regardless of subfield.

For a basic discussion of the journal’s approach to book reviewing, see Jeffrey C. Isaac, “A Statement from the Book Review Editor,” Perspectives on Politics 4 (March 2006): 3–4.