There is no strict word limit for the APSR, as some articles need more space than others. However, we expect most articles to be less than 11,000 words, and research notes should be less than 7,000 words. (Wordcounts exclude appendices and reference lists.) The length of syntheses should follow the guidelines for this special track. All manuscripts should include a word count on the front page. Abstracts must be 150 words or less. This website provides a free (and fairly accurate) word count tool for counting words in PDFs.

Manuscripts should be written in such a way that they preserve the anonymity of the author. To ensure anonymous review, authors should avoid citing themselves unnecessarily or excessively and should ensure that any self-citation does not reveal their identity. To that effect, obvious references to the author should be removed (e.g., “As I wrote in 1993,…”).

Beginning January 1, 2019, an ORCID iD is a requirement for corresponding authors submitting to APSR. The Editorial Manager system will prompt authors to attach an ORCID iD to their manuscript during the submission process. Authors can also choose to update their Editorial Manager profile with their ORCID iD in advance to save themselves time during the submission process. Including an ORCID iD with your article submission improves the discoverability of your work and creates more opportunities for recognition. By using your iD you can also benefit from having your ORCID record automatically updated when your article publishes. ORCID deposits your iD to Crossref and, provided you have permitted them to do so, they’ll update your record automatically each time you publish an article.

Learn more about ORCID and Crossref’s automatic update functionality.

The APSR publishes only original work. Please see Cambridge’s Preprint Policy for exceptions. Authors who have work under review or published that is similar or closely related to their submitted manuscript must notify the editors in their cover letter.

We encourage authors to preregister their empirical research questions and main analyses and to indicate which analyses were preregistered. Doing so increases research transparency. Preregistration is generally expected for experiments, but any study seeking to test hypotheses on prospective data should attempt to preregister as many of its key elements as possible, and even exploratory or descriptive analyses can be preregistered.

Already we have seen that many empirical submissions to APSR reference pre-analysis plans. These are often mentioned in texts or in footnotes and are also noted when manuscripts are submitted. However, we are also seeing that reviewers are sometimes slowed down when they cannot access registrations or are confused when they see papers with analyses that deviate from registered analyses.

If your study references a pre-analysis plan or pre-registration, we expect the following:

Share: Include an anonymized version of the registration and/or pre-analysis plan in your online appendix, or add a link to an anonymized version, which is possible via OSF (for instance).

Signpost: It is not uncommon for a single piece to include registered analyses and also unregistered analyses. In these cases, mark clearly which analyses are registered and which are not, and refer to the latter as unregistered or exploratory analyses.

Evaluate: In your text, indicate whether results are in line or not with any pre-registered expectations. Pre-registrations do not necessarily include statements about expected findings, but if they do, then refer to these when you discuss your actual findings.

Reconcile: It is not uncommon for implemented analyses to deviate from registered analyses. This can often be done for good reasons and we do not require authors to adhere to analysis plans that turn out to be flawed or inappropriate given the data. However, in case of deviations, you should provide (a) a reconciliation report that indicates which analyses have been modified or dropped, (b) a justification for modifying or dropping analyses and, (c) when possible, a report of what the conclusions would have been if the original analyses were implemented. Place these in an appendix and indicate major deviations clearly in the manuscript text. We do not require a specific format for this report, but a reporting table such as the one required by the Journal for Experimental Political Science can be an effective way to summarize results.

APSR takes seriously its role as a space for scholarly communication within the political science community. The Journal will continue to collaborate with authors to meet DA*RT standards. We recognize that there are many ways to meet those standards depending upon the type of scholarship, research context, and other factors that vary across the discipline. However, all approaches recognize the importance of clear and transparent communication about the procedures used to collect and analyze evidence. While epistemological and methodological diversity is a strength of the political science community, this diversity also makes more imperative scholarly communication that is as transparent and accessible as possible across disciplinary subfields and approaches.

If a conditionally accepted manuscript substantially relies on computation, the authors will be required to deposit a reproducibility package containing data, code, and documentation necessary for other scholars to reproduce the manuscript’s findings. We will verify that the package reproduces the paper’s results and is documented well enough that future researchers can understand and benefit from it. Our detailed guidelines for reproducibility packages can be found below.

Our guidelines discuss circumstances where data cannot be shared for ethical and/or legal reasons. Authors who anticipate problems adhering to our guidelines for this or other reasons should get in touch before their manuscript is reviewed.

Papers containing formal theory should be submitted with complete proofs, either in the text or as Supplementary Material, to be available to the reviewers and editors during the review process. Formal claims will be reviewed in detail by an editor and assistants at the conditional acceptance stage for consistency and readability. Authors are expected to collaborate with the journal in addressing any potential issues raised by this technical verification.

For further instructions, see Guidelines for Reproducibility.

The Journal follows COPE guidelines scrupulously, which means that any errors discovered after publication may entail a retraction, corrigendum, or expression of concern. The Journal also publishes replications and encourages comments on each article’s publication DOI on Cambridge Core, both of which are intended to encourage post-publication discussion of work on our pages.

This upshot is this: If your paper is published in the APSR there is a very good chance it will be scrutinized in a high-profile fashion by the academic community. To save time and potential embarrassment, authors should carefully consider the reproducibility and reliability of their work, before submission. Can the findings be reproduced? How robust are they to different choices in design (measurement, sample, specification, estimator)? Are weaknesses, assumptions, and limitations openly acknowledged?

We hope that post-publication scrutiny leads to better practices and not to intellectual temerity. It is not our intention to discourage exploratory work. We also hope to normalize the process of post-publication debate and discussion, which means bringing honest mistakes to the fore without shame or recriminations. Intellectual activity is always risky, and sometimes errors offer the quickest path forward. Engagement is always preferred to withdrawal so long as it is in the service of truth and not undertaken in an ad hominem fashion.

The APSR expects all authors to comply with ethical and transparency obligations described in APSA’s A Guide to Professional Ethics in Political Science (2012) and in Principles and Guidance for Human Subjects Research (approved by the APSA Council, April 4, 2020).

Researchers have ethical obligations to:

• ensure that research that directly engages human participants in the research process adheres to APSA’s Principles and Guidance for Human Subjects Research, and, if it does not for well-founded reasons, provide reasoned justification in scholarly publications and presentations (APSA 2012, 9);·     declare what compensation was paid (if any) to human participants and how the amount was determined;
• declare any potential or perceived conflicts of interest arising from their research (APSA 2012, 9);
• disclose sources of financial support for their research (APSA 2012, 9);
• “facilitate the evaluation of their evidence-based knowledge claims through data access, production transparency, and analytic transparency so that their work can be tested or replicated” (APSA 2012, 9) whenever legally, ethically and epistemologically possible; and
• acknowledge contributions to the research, including authorship and citations to previous work, as appropriate (APSA 2012, 9, 11).

To ensure that research published in the ASPR is consistent with these principles, when submitting their research for publication in APSR, all authors will be expected to explicitly affirm the ways in which their research practices conform to these standards. In particular, submitting authors will be asked:

• if the submission draws on research directly engaging human participants, including human subjects, expert interviewees, and those exposed to experimental interventions. If yes, authors should answer “yes” to the screening question (even if ruled exempt from further review by the relevant ethics review board) and
• discuss in the text or an appendix their ethical practices concerning human participants, particularly those included in the Principles such as consent, deception, confidentiality, harm and impact, as well as whether and how participants were compensated
• confirm compliance with APSA’s Principles and Guidance for Human Subjects Research, or if it is not in compliance, provide reasoned justification for deviation(s) in the main text, with additional explanation provided in an appendix (included at the time of submission) if needed;
• whether they adhere to the other ethical principles listed above, including explaining how any other real or perceived ethical issues or conflicts of interest, were addressed, including where these issues are discussed in the manuscript or an appendix as needed;
• to declare any agencies, organizations, or institutions that funded the research;
• to indicate where in the manuscript or an appendix the data collection procedures (if relevant) are explained; and
• to confirm that, if the paper is accepted, quantitative data and related code necessary to produce the results will be made publicly available on the APSR Dataverse, or in cases where such confirmation is not possible, provide a reasoned justification in the text or an appendix concerning the legal, ethical, or methodological constraints that prevent public, free access to the data.

This information (including any appendix that provides further details) will be shared with reviewers as appropriate. Reviewers will be invited to comment on the extent to which the research or researchers have adequately addressed ethical and transparency obligations.

To speed the review process along, encourage reviewers to provide detailed and forward- looking advice (for example, if a paper belongs somewhere, but not the APSR), and reduce redundant reviewer workload, we allow the transfer from the APSR of manuscripts that have been reviewed and rejected to another participating journal (“transfer out” policy). We will also allow the transfer of reviewed manuscripts to the APSR (“transfer in” policy).

Transferring a Reviewed Manuscript to Another Journal (Transfer Out Policy)

When a paper is rejected by the APSR with reviews, the corresponding author will be notified in the rejection letter that they have the option to transfer their manuscript and reviews to another journal within 4 weeks of their rejection. This policy is implemented as follows:

1. The author is notified in the rejection letter about this option.
2. If the author wishes to take this step, they ask the managing editor to initiate a transfer to another participating journal.
3. We send the anonymized MS and the anonymized reviews to the new editor. 
4. If the recipient journal’s editor wishes to know the identities of the reviewers, they respond to apsr@apsanet.org and request that information. 

Our initial request for review alerts reviewers of the possibility of this transfer. 

Transferring a reviewed manuscript to the APSR (Transfer In Policy)

When a paper is rejected by another journal with reviews, if the journal has a transfer-out process, we will accept the transfer of the anonymous manuscript and identified reviews to the APSR to assist in our review process. We will accept reviews only from journals that allow the transfer of reviews from the APSR and where manuscripts are reviewed anonymously by external reviewers.

To initiate such a transfer, an author should proceed as follows:

1. The author completes a normal new submission to the APSR. In the note to editor box in the submission system, the author should explain that they are requesting a transfer of reviews from another journal and specify that journal. The paper must have been rejected fewer than 4 weeks ago by the other journal.
2. The author is encouraged to submit a cover letter detailing any changes they have made, or would propose to make, if the manuscript were to be reviewed at the APSR.
3. Simultaneously, the author requests from another journal that their manuscript and reviews be transferred to the APSR by having them sent by the other journal to apsr@apsanet.org. All reviews must be sent. The author should inform the transferring journal of their manuscript ID at the APSR to help us in linking the old reviews to the new submission.
4. If reviewer identities are not included in this initial correspondence from the other journal, upon receipt of this email, the APSR managing editor will request the reviewer identities.
5. This information, with any attachments, will be forwarded to the editor in chief and subsequently to the handling editor.
6. The reviews and any cover letter will be consulted in making a desk rejection decision. As with any other submission, a paper can be desk rejected, sent out for review, or offered a “reject and resubmit.” If a paper is sent out for review, a prior reviewer may be consulted again if the editor believes it would be helpful, particularly if a manuscript has been revised since initial submission. The editor is under no obligation to rely on these external reviews or to ask for additional comments from any prior reviewers.
7. As with any other submission, a decision on a manuscript is final. In particular, a manuscript submitted to the APSR through the transfer process could not be resubmitted as a regular submission.

Journals Allowing the Transfer of an Article from the APSR

The following journals will allow the transfer of an article previously reviewed at the APSR:

American Politics Research
Comparative Politics
Conflict Management and Peace Science
Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy
Economics and Politics
European Journal of Political Theory
Global Studies Quarterly
International Interactions
International Organization
International Political Science Review
International Politics
International Studies Quarterly
International Studies Review
Journal of Conflict Resolution
Journal of Development Economics
Journal of Experimental Political Science
Journal of Global Security Studies
Journal of Peace Research
Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics
Journal of Theoretical Politics
Mathematical Social Sciences
Perspectives on Politics
Political Analysis
Political Behavior
Political Communication
Political Psychology
Politics & Gender
Polity
Public Opinion Quarterly
Review of International Organizations
Social Choice and Welfare
Social Science Quarterly
Texas National Security Review
West European Politics

Please consult with the new journal submission guidelines prior to initiating this transfer to understand their policies about transfers. Journals may ask you to submit a cover letter detailing any changes you have made or would proposed to make if they review your manuscript.