Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-th4rj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T20:23:43.026Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Notes from the Editors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2015

Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

We would like to begin this issue with an announcement. As you may know, we, as editors of the APSR, along with the editors of many other leading political science journals, have committed to implementing the principles recommended by the APSA Ad Hoc Committee on Data Access and Research Transparency (DART). The statement from the DART group can be found here: http://www.dartstatement.org/. We are currently in the process of revising our submission guidelines to be consistent with these recommendations. We are very mindful of the diversity of research traditions in our discipline, and realize that “one size does not fit all”—so we wish to proceed with due care. However, we believe that these are timely changes that need to be made to promote research transparency and trust in our scholarship, and hence we are committed to implementing these changes in 2016. We will be discussing the proposed changes at the annual meeting in San Francisco at a special panel, and we invite everyone to attend.

Information

Type
From the Editor: In This Issue
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 109 , Issue 3 , August 2015, pp. iii - viii
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2015 

We would like to begin this issue with an announcement. As you may know, we, as editors of the APSR, along with the editors of many other leading political science journals, have committed to implementing the principles recommended by the APSA Ad Hoc Committee on Data Access and Research Transparency (DART). The statement from the DART group can be found here: http://www.dartstatement.org/. We are currently in the process of revising our submission guidelines to be consistent with these recommendations. We are very mindful of the diversity of research traditions in our discipline, and realize that “one size does not fit all”—so we wish to proceed with due care. However, we believe that these are timely changes that need to be made to promote research transparency and trust in our scholarship, and hence we are committed to implementing these changes in 2016. We will be discussing the proposed changes at the annual meeting in San Francisco at a special panel, and we invite everyone to attend.

In this issue, we highlight “civil society” —both the role played by organizations in promoting development and change and evaluating the effectiveness of efforts at building social capital in postconflict environments. Our first three articles focus on this theme, but clearly several other articles in this issue also deal with questions regarding the impact of organizations and groups particularly on sustainable development and violence. Other important questions addressed in this issue include: What is the appropriate role of religion in American society? What is the role of clan governance and political stability? What is the ideal size of a polity in promoting democratic competition? And what type of constitution-writing process is more likely to generate democratic outcomes?

In This Issue

How do human rights organizations (HROs) persuade individuals to take action? This question is relevant for all organizations that seek to persuade individuals to share their values and to take action, but has not garnered much attention. In “Human Rights Organizations as Agents of Change: An Experimental Examination of Framing and Micromobilization,” Kyla Jo McEntire, Michele Leiby, and Matthew Krain employ an experimental research design to evaluate whether information, personal stories, or motivational appeals were more successful at shaping values and encouraging action. They find that framing matters, but also that all three types of appeals are better at shaping values than at mobilizing for action. This finding has implications not only for HROs, but more broadly for organizations that seek to engage citizens.

In “International Interventions to Build Social Capital: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Sudan,” Alexandra Avdeenko and Michael J. Gilligan seek to evaluate the effects of a program in a postconflict setting designed to build social capital. The authors undertook a set of field experiments together with network and household surveys in a group of 24 villages—of which 16 are “treated” (i.e., they were provided with assistance of particular kinds by the Sudanese Community Development Fund) and eight are “control villages” (i.e., not provided these kinds of assistance). The results of their field experiments lead the authors to conclude that, compared to control communities, prosocial preferences were not higher in treatment villages some years after program assistance had been commenced. Similarly, membership in networks of different types, as revealed by a network survey, was also not higher in treatment villages. The paper has important implications regarding the effectiveness of social capital formation efforts in postconflict environments.

James D. Fearon, Macartan Humphreys, and Jeremy M. Weinstein in “How Does Development Assistance Affect Collective Action Capacity? Results from a Field Experiment in Post-Conflict Liberia” use a field experiment in Liberia and a combination of survey and behavioral measures to assess the effects of community-driven reconstruction on a range of social outcomes. The authors find that such an intervention had a positive effect on collective action as individuals in villages receiving the reconstruction aid exhibited more cooperative behaviors. The results, however, hold only in communities where the group tasked to play the behavioral game consisted of both men and women, with no significant effects in communities where there was an all-female group in charge. This paper provides important insights on the building of social capital and interactions with gender in post-conflict environments.

In “Motivational Crowding in Sustainable Development Interventions,” Arun Agrawal, Ashwini Chhatre, and Elisabeth R. Gerber analyze the effects of a sustainable development program in the Indian Himalaya on individuals’ motivations for conserving forest resources. Utilizing a quasi-experimental design, the program provided participants with either informational, material, or communal benefits with the intent to instill pro-environmental motivations. Contrary to the assumptions underlying numerous development and conservation projects in developing countries, both the informational and the monetary incentives under certain conditions replaced or “crowded out” environmental motivations with economic motivations. These results suggest a critical need for rethinking the design of sustainable development interventions in the future.

Jakana L. Thomas and Kanisha D. Bond note that there is substantial variation in both the presence of and the roles that women fulfill in different violent political organizations. In “Women's Participation in Violent Political Organizations,” the authors theorize about the reasons for this variation. Their theory leads Thomas and Bond to hypothesize that the organization's size, tactics, and attitude toward gender equality will influence the inclusion of women. They evaluate their hypotheses on the basis of an original dataset on women's participation in such organizations and supplement their quantitative analysis with a couple of case studies. They conclude that the characteristics of violent political organizations are an important factor in explaining the presence and roles of women in such groups.

The role of interest groups in the legislative process has received considerable attention in the literature. Considerably less attention has been paid to the role of interest groups in executive decision making. In their article “Influence and the Administrative Process: Lobbying the U.S. President's Office of Management and Budget,” Simon F. Haeder and Susan Webb Yackee examine 1,500 proposed agency rules that were reviewed by the OMB to see what happens to those rules when interest groups lobby the OMB. The results of their selection model are clear and the effect sizes are large; the Rule Change Index increases with every additional group lobbying the OMB. The effect is even stronger when professional lobbying firms are involved and the lobbyists represent business interests. Public interest lobbyists do not fare nearly as well.

The United States is a strikingly religious country. Alexis de Tocqueville was one of the first foreign observers to remark upon this fact, and to assign religion a central place in the story of American success. But what exactly is this place? In “Tocqueville on Religion, the Enlightenment, and the Democratic Soul,” Aaron L. Herold argues that Tocqueville was actually concerned about the weakness, the shallowness, of American religious sentiment. The Enlightenment philosophies that so influenced the Americans did not make adequate allowance for the innate human longing for immortality and self-sacrifice, and American religion had become thin as a result. What Tocqueville believes democracies need, Herold argues, is new outlets, religious or not, for these fundamental longings. Absent this, the longings will express themselves in uncontrolled, and possibly harmful, ways. This is an insight of importance not only to Americans, but to all who wish to shore up democracy.

In “Clan Governance and State Stability: The Relationship between Female Subordination and Political Order,” Valerie M. Hudson, Donna Lee Bowen, and Perpetua Lynne Nielsen show that stability and security are hampered in states where clans—or kin-based groups—remain influential in political governance. Clan-based societies tend to be strongly patrilineal and severely restrict the role of women in public life. To evaluate the impact of clan governance empirically, Hudson, Bowen, and Nielsen construct a Clan Governance Index, validate it against other measures of clan governance, and show that the presence of clan governance is associated with greater instability and insecurity. The authors suggests that change away from strongly patrilineal structures to greater gender equality significantly affects state stability and security.

Rachel M. Stein observes that the democratic peace literature has generally treated democracies as a homogeneous category of states and notes that democracies differ substantially in their propensity to initiate wars and investigates the reasons for this variation. In “War and Revenge: Explaining Conflict Initiation by Democracies,” she theorizes that cross-national differences in public opinion explain the difference in war initiation by democracies. Specifically, Stein theorizes that a public's “vengefulness” matters. She uses retention of the death penalty as a proxy for broad public endorsement of revenge and finds that democracies that have retained the death penalty longer are more likely to initiate wars. Stein's work thus provides a cautionary note to the assumption that the spread of democracy will reduce the frequency of war.

In “Demography and Democracy: A Global, District-level Analysis of Electoral Contestation,” John Gerring, Maxwell Palmer, Jan Teorell, and Dominic Zarecki tackle a fundamental question in the study of democracy—what is the relationship between polity size and democracy? Robert Dahl argued that democracy flourishes best in smaller units, in part because accountability is easier and citizens have greater access. However, the authors argue against that proposition, saying that size is related positively to contestation, and that this is due to a “mechanical effect.” They argue, rather, that contestation will increase with constituency size. They introduce a new and important data set, the Multi-level Election Archive, and support their arguments with both quantitative and qualitative evidence. The theorizing is well done, and the analysis is exhaustive. Just as important, the authors conclude by delving into the possible policy implications of their findings, identifying important conditional effects of any lessons that policymakers might wish to draw.

Constitution writing is a critical part of the process of founding a new political regime. For those concerned to advance democracy, what type of constitution-writing process is more likely to generate democratic outcomes? In “When Talk Trumps Text: The Democratizing Effects of Deliberation during Constitution-Making, 1974–2011,” Todd A. Eisenstadt, A. Carl LeVan, and Tofigh Maboudi use data covering 132 new constitutions in 118 countries, from 1974 through 2011, to gauge whether democratizing the adoption process leads to greater democracy after implementation. They find that democracy deepened in only half the cases—but why? The authors distinguish among popular participation at the drafting stage, the debating stage, and the ratification stage, and find that most salient is participation in the initial, drafting stage. The results are of great importance for constitution writers and advocates of democracy. It is critical to get popular “buy-in” at the beginning of the constitution-writing process; this appears to be more important than participation at any other stage.

Haifeng Huang, in “International Knowledge and Domestic Evaluations in a Changing Society: The Case of China,” addresses an important, yet relatively unexplored question—What is the relationship between citizens’ knowledge and information of foreign countries, particularly advanced democracies, in an authoritarian context, and how does that affect their evaluation of their own country and government? Using unique survey and experimental data, he finds that Chinese citizens with more positive perceptions and especially overestimation of socioeconomic conditions in foreign countries have more negative evaluations of China and the Chinese government. However, when correcting for this misinformation he finds that assessments of China improve. He argues that these results contribute to the study of politically relevant knowledge, and shed new light on the nuances of public opinion and anti-status quo sentiments in an authoritarian regime.

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 the APSR is 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:

  • Phillip Ardoin, Appalachian State University

  • Paul Gronke, Reed College

  • Editors, 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.