Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-zsp5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T19:20:41.127Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Notes from the Editors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2015

Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

We would like to begin with an announcement and a thank you. As you may already know, we have decided not to continue to serve as editors of the Review once our first four-year term expires, and will be passing the editorship on to the new editorial team in July 2016. We had been offered by the APSA leadership to continue our editorship until 2018 (i.e., a two-year extension, which would be the maximum allowable term as editors). However, for some very personal reasons we decided to decline that offer. Each of us had reasons—for instance, for me (John Ishiyama), I chose not to continue because my daughters, who are now in high school, will graduate in 2018. I do not want to miss out on this important time in their lives—this is very important to me. Although we enjoy being editors, and are honored by the confidence the association has in our leadership of the journal, we believe that one full term at the helm is enough. So thank you for your support, and we will continue to serve our discipline and the Association as editors of the APSR to the best of our abilities until July 2016.

Information

Type
From the Editor: In This Issue
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 109 , Issue 1 , February 2015, pp. iii - viii
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2015 

We would like to begin with an announcement and a thank you. As you may already know, we have decided not to continue to serve as editors of the Review once our first four-year term expires, and will be passing the editorship on to the new editorial team in July 2016. We had been offered by the APSA leadership to continue our editorship until 2018 (i.e., a two-year extension, which would be the maximum allowable term as editors). However, for some very personal reasons we decided to decline that offer. Each of us had reasons—for instance, for me (John Ishiyama), I chose not to continue because my daughters, who are now in high school, will graduate in 2018. I do not want to miss out on this important time in their lives—this is very important to me. Although we enjoy being editors, and are honored by the confidence the association has in our leadership of the journal, we believe that one full term at the helm is enough. So thank you for your support, and we will continue to serve our discipline and the Association as editors of the APSR to the best of our abilities until July 2016.

In this issue, we highlight the continuing importance of partisanship both in American politics and in other parts of the world. Our first three articles focus on extreme partisanship and its consequences. Hence, our cover reflects this focus. Other important questions addressed in this issue include whether or not Confucianism is compatible with liberalism. Does racial prejudice affect public attitudes about the provision of foreign aid among Americans? And perhaps most controversially, do local officials discriminate based upon ethnicity when providing information about voting to voters?

In This Issue

Those who study party identification and partisan politics have long debated whether partisan political actions reflect an expressive social identity and the defense of party status (sometimes referred to as “tribalism” by comparative party scholars) or the instrumental advancement and protection of policy and ideology. In “Expressive Partisanship: Campaign Involvement, Political Emotion, and Partisan Identity,” the findings of Leonie Huddy, Lilliana Mason, and Lene Aarøe lend strong support to the power of expressive partisan identity to instigate campaign involvement and also produce strong emotional reactions to ongoing campaign events. Using social identity theory to inform their research, they draw on data from four experimental studies conducted among populations that differ in their level of political activity to show that threat and reassurance to the party's status aroused greater anger and enthusiasm among strongly identified partisans than a threatened loss or victory to central policy issues.

With the growth in support for and success of Tea Party candidates, Republican leaders as well as scholars and strategic voters could learn a great deal from reading “What Happens When Extremists Win Primaries?” by Andrew B. Hall. Using a regression discontinuity design with U.S. House primary-election data from 1980–2010, Hall shows the severe electoral penalty that the party pays when the more extreme candidate—as measured by primary-election campaign receipt patterns—wins a close election over a more moderate candidate. The penalty is similar for the Democrats if an extremely liberal candidate wins over a more moderate candidate. The electoral penalty to the district also spills over to the district's subsequent roll-call representation.

In “Does Electoral Competition Exacerbate Interethnic or Interpartisan Economic Discrimination? Evidence from a Field Experiment in Market Price Bargaining,” Kristin Michelitch asks a fundamental question: Does political competition have the power to exacerbate economic discrimination between ordinary citizens along ethnic or partisan lines? The paper argues that political competition is known to shape the structure and salience of ethnic and partisan group memberships and individuals often discriminate along group lines in ordinary activities, especially in low-income, weak-state settings. This study explores discrimination over the electoral cycle in market price bargaining in Ghana. The paper tests a series of hypotheses derived from a formal model and tests them in field experiments at three points in time around Ghana's 2008 election. It finds that sellers accept lower prices from coethnic buyers regardless of temporal proximity to the election. However, only at election time do sellers accept lower prices from copartisans (especially if they are coethnics) and demand higher prices from noncopartisans. In sum, political competition has the power to affect commonplace economic transactions between citizens. Bias occurs among different ethnic groups but becomes exacerbated at election time, and even more so when the members of the ethnic group look like they are displaying partisan affiliation.

In “Quantifying Social Media's Political Space: Estimating Ideology from Publicly Revealed Preferences on Facebook,” Robert Bond and Solomon Messing provide a new means of estimating the ideology of politicians and citizens who are active on social media on the same ideological scale. After demonstrating that their new method produces reliable ideological estimates that are predictive of alternate measures of elite ideology and self-reported liberal-conservative ideological background, the authors use their measure to examine political polarization, and the structure of ideology in social relationships and how that structure is associated with voter turnout rates.

How are we to understand political ambition? Is it motivated by a desire to serve, or by self-interest? Is it inherently idealistic, or inherently cynical? Indeed, can we speak of it as a single thing at all? Lewis Fallis undertakes a close reading of one portion of Xenophon's Memorabilia to explore these issues. In “Six Portraits of Political Ambition in Xenophon's Memorabilia,” he uncovers multiple layers of meaning in Xenophon's account of Socrates’ conversations with six ambitious individuals in Book Three of that work. Fallis suggests that the six may have been chosen to span the whole range of political ambition and that the seemingly meandering conversation Socrates has with each is in fact an incisive investigation of the motivations, and the hopes, that underlie each type of ambition. The result is a fascinating catalogue of ambitions, which sheds light on this important, and perennial, issue of political life.

In “Race, Paternalism, and Foreign Aid: Evidence from U.S. Public Opinion,” Andy Baker uses a cleverly designed set of survey experiments to evaluate the impact of racial prejudice and paternalistic attitudes of white Americans on their support for foreign aid spending. Baker employs the notions of resentment and paternalism toward out-groups and shows that respondents were more supportive of aid when the target was a poor black recipient than a poor white one. This suggests experimental support for racial paternalism as a motivating factor for development aid. Although Baker seeks to contribute to the literature on foreign aid and development, his work is also of interest to scholars interested in racial prejudice.

In “Competing for Transparency: Political Competition and Institutional Reform in Mexican States,” Daniel Berliner and Aaron Erlich focus on the question of why political actors undertake reforms that constrain their own discretion. Using the case of Mexico, they examine the passage of access to information (ATI) laws across the 31 Mexican states from 2001 to 2007. Using a Cox Hazard model with time-varying covariates, they find that more politically competitive states passed laws more rapidly, even taking into account the party in power, levels of corruption, civil society, and other factors. They test a number of theoretical mechanisms and find the greatest evidence in favor of an insurance mechanism, by which incumbent parties who face uncertainty over future political control seek to ensure access to government information, and means of monitoring future incumbents, in case they lose power.

In “What Do I Need to Vote? Bureaucratic Discretion and Discrimination by Local Election Officials,” Ariel R. White, Noah L. Nathan, and Julie K. Faller address the question of whether street-level bureaucrats discriminate in the services they provide to constituents. Using a rather innovative field experiment, they measure differential information provision about voting provided by local election administrators in the United States. They contacted more than 7,000 local election officials in 48 states who were responsible for providing information to voters and implementing voter identification laws. They found evidence to support the idea that officials provide different information to potential voters based upon ethnicity. Emails sent from Latino aliases are significantly less likely to receive any response from local election officials than those from non-Latino white aliases and receive responses of lower quality. This finding raises concerns about the effect of voter ID laws on access to the franchise and about ethnic bias in the provision of services by local bureaucrats.

In “How to Rule the World: An Introduction to Xenophon's The Education of Cyrus,” Robert C. Bartlett offers a reading of Xenophon's The Education of Cyrus that highlights Cyrus’ techniques of leadership. Cyrus built a worldwide empire, and Xenophon says that he solved the problem of how to successfully manage human beings, how to bring about political concord. Xenophon details numerous tactics to achieve this, but Bartlett focuses on one idea that underlies them all. Cyrus succeeded by catering to a certain type of moral earnestness in human beings. People want the world to be a place where moral behavior is rewarded, perhaps for eternity; Cyrus fed this craving. Bartlett argues that Xenophon uses the case of Cyrus to show that this is the principal key to successful rule. One upshot is that human beings do not require freedom or the rule of law, so long as these moral hopes are fulfilled.

In “Presidential Particularism and Divide-the-Dollar Politics,” Douglas L. Kriner and Andrew Reeves argue that presidents are not universalistic but particularistic. In other words, presidents do not simply represent the American people as a whole, but instead favor those constituencies that are most likely to advance their political goals. Kriner and Reeves employ county-level data to demonstrate that presidential particularism operates several distinct ways: presidents target federal grants to enhance their prospects of reelection, they use federal grants to reward their partisan base, and they use such funds to strengthen their legislative support in Congress.

Adam M. Dynes and Gregory A. Huber present new evidence that the allocation of federal spending is driven by both the president's and the House majority's partisanship in their article entitled “Partisanship and the Allocation of Federal Spending: Do Same-Party Legislators or Voters Benefit from Shared Party Affiliation with the President and House Majority?” Additionally, they show that presidents do not simply favor all districts that are represented by same-party House members. Instead, they target states that are more competitive in presidential elections and districts where legislators are more vulnerable. In other words, presidents do not benefit all same-party House members equally, but favor those who are electorally vulnerable.

Sungmoon Kim tackles the very topical question whether Confucianism is compatible with modern liberalism in “Public Reason Confucianism: A Construction.” Kim argues that they are compatible, though perhaps only given a modified Confucianism and a modified liberalism. Employing the Rawlsian criterion of non-neutral “public reason,” he argues that Confucian liberalism would need to privilege certain kinds of societal values—indeed expect them of non-Confucians and immigrants—while at the same time the values of staunch or traditional Confucianism would need to be moderated or scaled back. A South Korean court case involving gender relations provides a revealing illustration.

INSTRUCTIONS TO CONTRIBUTORS

The American Political Science Review (APSR) publishes scholarly research of exceptional merit, focusing on important issues and demonstrating the highest standards of excellence in conceptualization, exposition, methodology, and craftsmanship. A significant advance in understanding of politics—whether empirical, interpretive, or theoretical—is the criterion for publication in the Review. Because the APSR reaches a diverse audience, authors must demonstrate how their analysis illuminates or answers an important research question of general interest in political science. For the same reason, authors must strive to be understandable to as many scholars as possible, consistent with the nature of their material.

The APSR publishes original work. Submissions should not include tables, figures, or substantial amounts of text that already have been published or are forthcoming in other places. In many cases, republication of such material would violate the copyright of the other publisher. Neither does the APSR consider submissions that are currently under review at other journals or that duplicate or overlap with parts of larger manuscripts submitted to other publishers (whether of books, printed periodicals, or online journals). If you have any questions about whether these policies apply in your case, you should address the issues in a cover letter to the editors or as part of the author comments section during online submission. You should also notify the editors of any related submissions to other publishers, whether for book or periodical publication, during the pendency of your submission's review at the APSR—regardless of whether they have yet been accepted. The editors may request copies of related publications.

The APSR uses a double-blind review process. You should follow the guidelines for preparing an anonymous submission in the “Specific Procedures” section that follows.

If your manuscript contains quantitative evidence and analysis, you should describe your procedures in sufficient detail to permit reviewers to understand and evaluate what has been done and—in the event the article is accepted for publication—to permit other scholars to replicate your results and to carry out similar analyses on other data sets. With surveys, for example, provide sampling procedures, response rates, and question wordings; calculate response rates according to one of the standard formulas given by the American Association for Public Opinion Research, Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys (Lenexa, KS: AAPOR, 2006).Footnote 1 For experiments, provide full descriptions of experimental protocols, methods of subject recruitment and selection, payments to subjects, debriefing procedures, and so on. In any case involving human subjects, the editors may require certification of appropriate institutional review and/or conformity with generally accepted norms.Footnote 2

The strength of evidence necessary for publication of quantitative empirical findings cannot be captured by any single criterion, such as the conventional .05 level of statistical significance. The journal's coeditors— following the evolving disciplinary standard among reviewers—will evaluate the strength of findings on a range of criteria beyond statistical significance, including substantive significance, theoretical aptness, the importance of the problem under study, and the feasibility of obtaining additional evidence.

In addition, authors of quantitative or experimental articles are expected to address the issue of data availability. You must normally indicate both where (online) you will deposit the information that is necessary to reproduce the numerical results and when that information will be posted (such as “on publication” or “by [definite date]”). You should be prepared, when posting, to provide not only the data used in the analysis but also the syntax files, specialized software, and any other information necessary to reproduce the numerical results in the manuscript. Where an exception is claimed, you should clearly explain why the data or other critical materials used in the manuscript cannot be shared, or why they must be embargoed for a limited period beyond publication.

Similarly, authors of qualitative, observational, or textual articles, or of articles that combine such methods with quantitative analysis, should indicate their sources fully and clearly enough to permit ready verification by other scholars—including precise page references to any published material cited and clear specification (e.g., file number) of any archival sources. Wherever possible, use of interactive citations is encouraged. Where field or observational research is involved, anonymity of participants will always be respected; but the texts of interviews, group discussions, observers’ notes, etc., should be made available on the same basis (and subject to the same exceptions) as with quantitative data.

For articles that include candidate gene or candidate gene-by-environment studies, APSR uses the same policy as the journal Behavior Genetics.Footnote 3 In relevant part, that policy states that an article will normally be considered for publication only if it meets one or more of the following criteria:

  • • It was an exploratory study or test of a novel hypothesis, but with an adequately powered, direct replication study reported in the same paper.

  • • It was an exploratory analysis or test of a novel hypothesis in the context of an adequately powered study, and the finding meets the statistical criteria for genome wide significance—taking into account all sources of multiple testing (e.g. phenotypes, genotypes, environments, covariates, subgroups).

  • • It is a rigorously conducted, adequately powered, direct replication study of a previously reported result.

Articles should be self-contained; you should not simply refer readers to other publications for descriptions of these basic research procedures.

Please indicate variables included in statistical analyses by italicizing the entire name of the variable—the first time it is mentioned in the text—and by capitalizing its first letter in all uses. You should also use the same names for variables in text, tables, and figures. Do not use acronyms or computational abbreviations when discussing variables in the text. All variables that appear in tables or figures should have been mentioned in the text, standard summary statistics (n, mean, median, standard deviation, range, etc.) provided, and the reason for their inclusion discussed. However, tables and figures should also be comprehensible without reference to the text (e.g., in any figures, axes should be clearly labeled). Please bear in mind also that neither the published or online versions of the Review normally can provide figures in color; be sure that a grayscale version will be comprehensible to referees and readers.

You may be asked to submit additional documentation if procedures are not sufficiently clear. If you advise readers that additional information is available on request, you should submit equally anonymous copies of that information with your manuscript as “supplemental materials.” If this additional information is extensive, please inquire about alternate procedures.

Manuscripts that, in the judgment of the co-editors, are largely or entirely critiques of, or commentaries on, articles previously published in the Review will be reviewed for possible inclusion in a forum section, using the same general procedures as for other manuscripts. Well before any publication, however, such manuscripts will also be sent to the scholar(s) whose work is being addressed. The author(s) of the previously published article will be invited to comment to the editors and to submit a rejoinder, which also will be peer-reviewed. While the Review does publish forums these are published very rarely. We do not publish rejoinders to rejoinders.

The APSR accepts only electronic submissions (at www.editorialmanager.com/apsr). The website provides detailed information about how to submit, what formatting is required, and what type of digital files may be uploaded. Please direct any questions regarding new submissions to the journal's editorial offices at .

Manuscript Formatting

Manuscripts should be no longer than 12,000 words including text, all tables and figures, notes, references, and appendices intended for publication. Font size must be at least 12 point for all parts of the submission, including notes and references, and all body text (including references) should be double-spaced. Include an abstract of no more than 150 words. Explanatory footnotes may be included but should not be used for simple citations. Do not use endnotes. Observe all of the further formatting instructions given on our website. Doing so lightens the burden on reviewers, copyeditors, and compositors. Submissions that violate our guidelines on formatting or length will be rejected without review.

For submission and review purposes, you may locate tables and figures (on separate pages and only one to a page) approximately where they fall in the text, but with an in-text locator for each, in any case (e.g., [Table 3 about here]). If your submission is accepted for publication, you may also be asked to submit high resolution digital source files of graphs, charts, or other types of figures. Following acceptance, all elements within any tables submitted (text, numerals, symbols, etc.) should be accessible for editing and reformatting to meet the journal's print specifications (e.g., they should not be included as single images not subject to reformatting). If you have any doubts about how to format the required in-text citations and/or bibliographic reference sections, please consult the latest edition of The Chicago Manual of Style (16th ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010) and review recent issues of the APSR.

Specific Procedures

Please follow these specific procedures for submission:

  1. 1. Before submitting any manuscript to the APSR, download a PDF of the Transfer of Copyright Agreement from the Editorial Manager login page at http://www.editorialmanager.com/apsr and be sure its terms and requirements, as well as the permissions granted to authors under its provisions, are acceptable to you. A signed agreement will be required for all work published in this journal.

  2. 2. When you submit (at www.editorialmanager.com/apsr), you will be invited to provide a short list of appropriate reviewers of your manuscript. Do not include on this list anyone who has already commented on the research included in your submission. Likewise, exclude any of your current or recent collaborators, institutional colleagues, mentors, students, or close friends. You may also “oppose” potential reviewers by name, as potentially biased or otherwise inappropriate, but you will be expected to provide specific reasons. The editors will refer to these lists in selecting reviewers, though there can be no guarantee that this will influence final reviewer selections.

  3. 3. You will also be required to upload a minimum of two separate files.

    1. a) An “anonymous” digital file of your submission, which should not include any information that identifies the authors. Also excluded should be the names of any other collaborators in the work (including research assistants or creators of tables or figures). Likewise do not provide in-text links to any online databases used that are stored on any personal websites or at institutions with which any of the co-authors are affiliated. Do not otherwise thank colleagues or include institution names, web addresses, or other potentially identifying information.

    2. b) A separate title page should include the full manuscript title, plus names and contact information (mailing address, telephone, fax, and e-mail address) for all credited authors, in the order their names should appear, as well as each author's academic rank and institutional affiliation. You may also include any acknowledgements or other author notes about the development of the research (e.g., previous presentations of it) as part of this separate title page. In the case of multiple authors, indicate which should receive all correspondence from the APSR. You may also choose to include a cover letter.

  4. 4. Please make sure the file contains all tables, figures, appendices, and references cited in the manuscript.

  5. 5. If your previous publications are cited, please do so in a way that does not make the authorship of the work being submitted to the APSR obvious. This is usually best accomplished by referring to yourself and any co-authors in the third person and including normal references to the work cited within the list of references. Your prior publications should be included in the reference section in their normal alphabetical location. Assuming that in-text references to your previous work are in the third person, you should not redact self-citations and references (possible exceptions being any work that is “forthcoming” in publication, and which may not be generally accessible to others). Manuscripts with potentially compromised anonymity may be returned, potentially delaying the review processes.

  6. 6. Charges apply for all color figures that appear in the print version of the journal. At the time of submission, contributors should clearly state whether their figures should appear in color in the online version only, or whether they should appear in color online and in the print version. There is no charge for including color figures in the online version of the Journal but it must be clear that color is needed to enhance the meaning of the figure, rather than simply being for esthetic purposes. If you request color figures in the printed version, you will be contacted by CCC-Rightslink who are acting on our behalf to collect Author Charges. Please follow their instructions in order to avoid any delay in the publication of your article.

Further questions

Do not hesitate, in any cases of doubt, to consult the APSR Editorial Offices with more specific questions by telephone (940–891–6803) or by sending an e-mail to:

ELECTRONIC ACCESS TO THE APSR

Back issues of the APSR are available in several electronic formats and through several vendors. Except for the last three years (as an annually “moving wall”), back issues of the APSR beginning with Volume 1, Number 1 (November 1906), are available online through JSTOR (http://www.jstor.org/). At present, JSTOR's complete journal collection is available only via institutional subscription, e.g., through many college and university libraries. For APSA members who do not have access to an institutional subscription to JSTOR, individual subscriptions to its APSR content are available. Please contact Member Services at APSA for further information, including annual subscription fees.

Individual members of the American Political Science Association can access recent issues of the APSR, Perspectives, and PS through the APSA website (www.apsanet.org) with their username and password. Individual nonmember access to the online edition will also be available, but only through institutions that hold either a print-plus-electronic subscription or an electronic-only subscription, provided the institution has registered and activated its online subscription.

Full text access to current issues of the APSR, Perspectives, and PS is also available on-line by library subscription from a number of database vendors. Currently, these include University Microfilms Inc. (UMI) (via its CD-ROMs General Periodicals Online and Social Science Index and the on-line database ProQuest Direct), Online Computer Library Center (OCLC) (through its on-line database First Search as well as on CD-ROMs and magnetic tape), and the Information Access Company (IAC) (through its products Expanded Academic Index, InfoTrac, and several on-line services [see below]). Others may be added from time to time.

The APSR is also available on databases through six online services: Datastar (Datastar), Business Library (Dow Jones), Cognito (IAC), Encarta Online Library (IAC), IAC Business (Dialog), and Newsearch (Dialog).

The editorial office of theAPSRis not involved in the subscription process to either JSTOR for back issues or the other vendors for current issues. Please contact APSA, your reference librarian, or the database vendor for further information about availability.

OTHER CORRESPONDENCE

The American Political Science Association's address, telephone, and fax are 1527 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, (202) 483–2512 (voice), and (202) 483–2657 (fax). E-mail: . Please direct correspondence as follows.

  • Information, including news and notes, for PS:

  • Dr. Robert J-P. Hauck, Editor, PS

  • E-mail:

Circulation and subscription correspondence (domestic claims for non receipt of issues must be made within four months of the month of publication; overseas claims, within eight months):

EXPEDITING REQUESTS FOR COPYING APSR, PERSPECTIVES, AND PS ARTICLES FOR CLASS USE AND OTHER PURPOSES

Class Use

The Comprehensive Publisher Photocopy Agreement between APSA and the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) permits bookstores and copy centers to receive expedited clearance to copy articles from the APSR and PS in compliance with the Association's policies and applicable fees. The general fee for articles is 75 cents per copy. However, current Association policy levies no fee for the first 10 copies of a printed article, whether in course packs or on reserve. Smaller classes that rely heavily on articles (i.e., upper-level undergraduate and graduate classes) can take advantage of this provision, and faculty ordering 10 or fewer course packs should bring it to the attention of course pack providers. APSA policy also permits free use of the electronic library reserve, with no limit on the number of students who can access the electronic reserve. Both large and small classes that rely on these articles can take advantage of this provision. The CCC's address, telephone, and fax are 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, (978) 750–8400 (voice), and (978) 750–4474 (fax). This agreement pertains only to the reproduction and distribution of APSA materials as hard copies (e.g., photocopies, microfilm, and microfiche).

The Association of American Publishers (AAP) has created a standardized form for college faculty to submit to a copy center or bookstore to request copyrighted material for course packs. The form is available through the CCC, which will handle copyright permissions.

APSA also has a separate agreement pertaining to CCC's Academic E-Reserve Service. This agreement allows electronic access for students and instructors of a designated class at a designated institution for a specified article or set of articles in electronic format. Access is by password for the duration of a class.

Please contact your librarian, the CCC, or the APSA Reprints Department for further information.

APSR Authors

If you are the author of an APSR article, you may use your article in course packs or other printed materials without payment of royalty fees and you may post it at personal or institutional websites as long as the APSA copyright notice is included.

Other Uses of APSA-Copyrighted Materials

For any further copyright issues, please contact the APSA Reprints Department.

INDEXING

Articles appearing in the APSR before June 1953 were indexed in The Reader's Guide to PeriodicalLiterature. Current issues are indexed in ABC Pol Sci; America, History and Life 1954–; Book Review Index; Current Contents: Social and Behavioral Sciences; EconLit; Energy Information Abstracts; Environmental Abstracts; Historical Abstracts; Index of Economic Articles; Information Service Bulletin; International Bibliography of Book Reviews of Scholarly Literature in the Humanities and Social Sciences; International Bibliography of Periodical Literature in the Humanities and Social Sciences; International Index; International Political Science Abstracts; the Journal of Economic Literature; Periodical Abstracts; Public Affairs; Public Affairs Information Service International Recently Published Articles; Reference Sources; Social Sciences and Humanities Index; Social Sciences Index; Social Work Research and Abstracts; and Writings on American History. Some of these sources may be available in electronic form through local public or educational libraries. Microfilm of the APSR, beginning with Volume 1, and the index of the APSR through 1969 are available through University Microfilms Inc., 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106 (www.umi.com). The Cumulative Index to the American Political Science Review, Volumes 63 to 89: 1969–95, is available through the APSA.

Footnotes

1 See http://www.aapor.org/standards.asp

2 One widely accepted guide to such norms is given by the American Anthropological Association's Code of Ethics, particularly, Section III. http://www.aaanet.org/issues/policy-advocacy/upload/AAA-Ethics-Code-2009.pdf

3 Behavior Genetics 42 (2012): 1–2, DOI 10.1007/s10519-011-9504-zvi

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.