---
name: brycewang-stanford/apsr-review-process
source: https://app.decimal.ai/s/brycewang-stanford-apsr-review-process@1/SKILL.md
source_sha256: edc0748b3fa5
---

# Review Process (apsr-review-process)

Knowing how APSR screens and decides lets you pre-empt the failure modes before submitting. APSR is
**double-anonymous** and screens hard at the desk before external review.

## When to trigger

- Before submitting, to stress-test against desk-rejection grounds
- Deciding whether to use the **Registered Reports** (Stage 1) route
- Interpreting a decision letter and setting expectations
- Understanding what reviewers are instructed to weigh

## How APSR review works

1. **Double-anonymous.** Reviewers do not know the authors and authors do not know reviewers.
   Anonymize the manuscript accordingly (see `apsr-submission`).
2. **Desk screening first.** Every paper is considered for **desk rejection** on three grounds:
   - **Remit** — not research, not political science, out of scope, or not in adequate English.
   - **Ethics** — plagiarized/unattributed text, or research based on unethical procedures.
   - **Substance** — missing a key element of an article, insufficiently significant findings, or
     **failure to engage the relevant literature(s)**.
   - *Substantive* desk rejections require **at least two editors** to agree.
3. **External review.** Papers passing the desk are sent to expert reviewers.
4. **Decision categories**: **reject**, **accept**, or **revise and resubmit** — where **R&R is
   reserved for papers very close to publishable quality**. Strong support from **all or nearly all**
   reviewers is generally necessary, but the decision is **at the editor's discretion**.
5. **Review transfer.** Anonymized manuscripts/reviews may be forwarded only to journals that also use
   double-anonymous protocols (an opt-in initiative).

## Registered Reports route (prospective designs)

- Submit a **Stage 1** package — theory, design, and analysis plan — that is reviewed **before** data
  collection/analysis. In-principle acceptance commits the journal to publish regardless of results if
  you execute the plan. Choose this **before** you have results (see `apsr-topic-selection`).

## Audit yourself against the desk (three grounds, three tests)

Run each desk-rejection ground as a self-test **before** upload:

- **Remit test.** Recognizably political science, with a research contribution, in publishable
  English. Interdisciplinary work passes when the *question* is political, not merely the data.
- **Ethics test.** Every borrowed passage attributed; every human-subjects procedure covered by
  approvals you would show. This ground has no repair after submission.
- **Substance test.** Three sub-checks: (a) no missing element — theory, evidence, and stakes all
  present, not promised; (b) the finding clears "insufficiently significant" — someone outside your
  subfield would care; (c) every literature a plausible reviewer would name is engaged, since
  failure to engage relevant literatures is an explicit desk ground. The two-editor rule cuts both
  ways: no single skeptical editor can desk you, but the paper must survive two independent
  readings of its first five pages.

## Write for the reviewer coalition

Because strong support from **all or nearly all** reviewers is generally necessary, an APSR paper
faces a coalition problem, not a median-voter problem. Expect a mix like: a methods-focused reader,
a subfield expert, and a generalist from elsewhere in the discipline. One unconvinced member
usually sinks the round. Practically:

- Give the methods reader the identification defense in the main text, not the appendix.
- Give the subfield expert accurate engagement with the debate they know best — where "failure to
  engage" complaints originate.
- Give the generalist a reason to care by page two; never strand them behind jargon.
- The sixteen-editor team at thirteen universities means an editor near your subfield will likely
  handle the paper — frame it so the right editor recognizes it as theirs.

## Reading the decision letter

- A genuine **R&R is a strong signal**: the category is reserved for papers very close to
  publishable quality. Treat the letter as a contract — do everything feasible, explain the rest
  (route to `apsr-rebuttal`).
- A **reject with substantive reviews** is not an invitation to resubmit to APSR; it is free
  refereeing for the next venue. Do not resubmit a rejected paper as if new.
- Because the final call is at the **editor's discretion**, weigh the editor's own letter above any
  single reviewer's report when deciding what to prioritize.

## Anti-patterns

- Submitting a subfield-only paper to a discipline-wide journal (substance desk rejection)
- Ignoring an obvious related literature (explicit desk-rejection ground)
- Expecting an R&R for a paper that is far from publishable — R&R is for near-ready papers
- Choosing Registered Reports after results exist

## Output format

```
【Desk-rejection check】remit / ethics / substance — any red flags?
【Significance】general enough to clear "insufficiently significant"? [Y/N]
【Literature engaged】incl. cross-subfield? [Y/N]
【Track】standard vs Registered Reports (Stage 1)
【Realistic outcome】reject / R&R / (rare) accept
【Next】apsr-submission (or apsr-rebuttal if decided)
```

## Supplementary resources

- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — peer-review policy, desk-rejection grounds, decision categories, Registered Reports