Read on Twitter
Our webinar begins shortly! Jeremy Bailey and Susan McWilliams Barndt, editors of American Political Thought, will speak on the process of publishing a journal article in this illuminating virtual workshop. https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/8315967473203/WN_BUWZHQmrR0Krx7K5i5oTeQ
Read about the latest issue of American Political Thought here!: https://jackmillercenter.org/american-political-thought-journal-summer-2020-issue/
Watch the livestream on YouTube!:
Tom Cleveland: What is American Political Thought?
Susan McWilliams Barndt: Jeremy and I became editors of the journal about a year and a half. The journal is the premier source on American political thought. Our first priority is excellent scholarship on that topic.
McWilliams: Our next priority is to expand the disciplinary range of this fairly young journal, as well as the range of authors and readers.
Jeremy D. Bailey: We absolutely want the journal to be a place for scholars that are seeking tenure and credentials for future jobs. Susan and I are also editors of the University Press of Kansas' American Political Thought book series, which is excellent.
Cleveland: How does an author think about finding a venue for their work?
McWilliams: Do your homework! You want to make sure that your piece is a good fit. You also want to be aware of your institutions guidelines.
Bailey: The main thing the author should ask is - does my article make one or two scholarly contributions? That will affect the target audience. Most people will have one or two journals that are in range for their topic.
Bailey: If you have a really cool interpretation, something novel, it will be of more interest to a particular group.
McWilliams: A lot of times, contemporary tie-ins won't really work. If you have a narrow topic, you should be careful to not try and stretch it to something that is outside of its scope.
Cleveland: What happens after a piece is submitted to a journal?
McWilliams: Is everything formatted correctly and the right length? We first check to make sure that the piece follows submission guidelines. Next we check the prose.
Bailey: Next we decide to assign an editor based on who is the best fit. Once assigned, that editor is responsible for selecting external reviewers.
McWilliams: We do try to help people make the best case for themselves. We'll mention what needs fixing in a piece. We'll also mention if something is not a good fit for the journal. If something is being rejected, it likely needs major work (not just very minor edits).
Bailey: External reviews will dismiss pieces that don't argue a specific scholarly contribution.
Bailey: It's not bad to submit names of possible reviewers, but please do NOT list friends or advisors. It's okay if you know them, but it should be a professional connection.
McWilliams: For the most part, we discuss external reviewers and choose based on our needs. If an article is about Reconstruction, we'll want a variety of reviewers who are knowledgeable in Reconstruction.
Bailey: If a piece is clearly in a certain tradition, you may get two reviewers who are in that camp, but also expect a third reviewer from a different camp.
McWilliams: The editors will read the reviews after they've come in and choose those that are most helpful. The three reviews together make clear what changes will most address the maximum amount of concerns. We try to come to these conclusions as soon as possible.
Bailey: Timewise, our touchpoints are about a week. The biggest delays are from time spent waiting to hear back from reviewers.
Cleveland: What should an author do if a revision comes back with reviewer errors in it?
McWilliams: Feel free to write to the editors and mention that you're revising, but that you'd like to check in about the error FIRST. Don't be afraid to have a back-&-forth with the editor.
McWilliams: Feel free to write to the editors and mention that you're revising, but that you'd like to check in about the error FIRST. Don't be afraid to have a back-&-forth with the editor.
Bailey: Catherine Zuckert was always very clear that revisions went through a new set of reviewers. We are not doing that by default unless there was a particularly grumpy reviewer that is unwilling to re-review.
Cleveland: Is there any impact from the pandemic on peer review?
Bailey: I've found that reviewers are slower. Younger scholars are hungry, but tenured reviewers certainly got slower.
Bailey: I've found that reviewers are slower. Younger scholars are hungry, but tenured reviewers certainly got slower.
McWilliams: We're seeing fewer submissions from female scholars, presumably because of new childcare responsibilities. Our seasonal surges are also not following usual patterns. Some people have more time, some have less.
Cleveland: As editors, do you know if areas and topics in APT that haven't received much attention?
Bailey: We're receiving a lot of stuff on race, Reconstruction, Frederick Douglass, and Tocqueville. I hesitate to nudge people in any one direction. Younger scholars are already doing cool stuff.
McWilliams: Better to do something that you're passionate about instead of trying to follow any trends in topics. Anything that seems cutting edge is probably already being done.
McWilliams: For instance, if you're not familiar with race in APT, don't try to tie your article to current events or Black Lives Matter. You need to demonstrate familiarity with the literature/scholarship of your topic.
Bailey: Assume that there is an interpretative debate and be willing to join that conversation.
Cleveland: What percentage of submissions end up in print?
Bailey: Probably somewhere in the range of somewhat above 20%. I'm not the meanest reviewer though - some are tougher than others.
Bailey: Probably somewhere in the range of somewhat above 20%. I'm not the meanest reviewer though - some are tougher than others.
Cleveland: Are general letters of inquiry common in journal publishing?
Bailey: If you're confused if your piece's topic would be of interest to a particular journal, it might make sense.
Bailey: If you're confused if your piece's topic would be of interest to a particular journal, it might make sense.
McWilliams: If you're pretty sure that your piece is a good fit, the letter won't be helpful to you.
Cleveland: How does APT think about diversity amongst its authors?
McWilliams: Diversity is important for discipline, subfield, scholarly output. I'd love diversity in race and gender, but reviewers are blind to these two aspects of course, since they don't know who the author is.
Bailey: We've added a research note format to the submission process. It disseminates a research finding that would be of interest to others without becoming a full-blown article.
