Reviewer Information

Reviewer Invitation and Submission Procedures:  Effective January 1, 2009, all manuscript review invitations will be made by the editors by email using Editorial Manager.  Potential reviewers will be provided the abstract of the paper in the email invitation and can click on a link to Editorial Manager to accept that invitation, at which point the entire manuscript may be downloaded or printed.  If unable to review, we ask that you send an email noting that you are not available and providing the names of two or three other individuals who you believe would be suitable reviewers.

When submitting a review, log in to Editorial Manager as a reviewer (same user ID and password if you are already registered as an author) and submit your recommendation.  We recommend that you write the review in your word processor, and then cut and paste your review into a text box.  Unfortunately, our electronic system does not accept PDF files; if it is impossible to submit your review using plain text, please send it to the journal office by email and we will upload the review for you. 

What We Would Like in a Review: The Journal of Politics is a high quality and, therefore, highly selective, general interest journal in Political Science. We seek to publish leading research in all aspects of the discipline, including cutting edge work at the intersection of Political Science and related disciplines. Statistically, only about one in ten manuscripts can be accepted for publication given current submission rates. Submitted manuscripts to the JOP are evaluated based on their contributions to theory, technical proficiency, and breadth of appeal, and we ask reviewers to address all three criteria to the best of their ability when reviewing a manuscript. If, as a reviewer, you have significant reservations about some aspects of a manuscript, we also would like you to address how reasonable it is to expect the authors to be able to revise the paper in ways that would make it suitable for publication in the JOP.  We would also appreciate an explicit recommendation in the text of the review. Should it be accepted as is or pending only minor revisions? If it needs major revisions, would you recommend that we invite the authors to revise and resubmit the paper for further review by the JOP or do you think the revisions are too great or their success too uncertain to encourage the author’s investment of time and energy? If you recommend that the manuscript should be declined by the JOP, can you suggest other journals more appropriate in your view?

Since we prize breadth of appeal as well as technical merit, we seek the opinions of a diverse set of reviewers for all submissions. As a reviewer, you may find that you are not expert on all aspects of a paper we send your way.  If you genuinely believe you are unable to review a manuscript to ANY significant degree, then, of course, you should decline to review. If, however, you feel confident to review some significant aspect of a manuscript – be it theory or method – we very much want your evaluation of those dimensions of the manuscript about which you do feel confident. 

We would prefer to receive reviews that are one to two pages in length, single spaced, but we realize that there are circumstances where reviews will be as short as a paragraph or two or as long as a few pages.

We Can’t Thank You Enough.  As a modest gesture of appreciation to our reviewers, those individuals who provide reviews are eligible for a 30% discount on all books published or distributed by the University of Chicago Press.  Simply browse online ( and use the promotional code UCPJ30 on the shopping cart page when you place your book order.    In addition, reviewers’ names will be listed in the final issue of the journal each year.