COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Michael S. Lewis-Beck, University of Iowa, chair

Kathryn C. Lavelle, Case Western Reserve University

Rose McDermott, Brown University

Diana M. Owen, Georgetown University

Mark Carl Rom, Georgetown University

Jennifer Nicoll Victor; George Mason University

Kenton W. Worcester, Marymount Manhattan College

I. CONTENTS

Question: Should the contents of PS change?

Answer: Readers, according to our recent survey, appear highly satisfied with the contents of the journal as a whole. Many appreciate the diverse range of topics covered in PS. Members of the committee repeatedly noted that PS has a “Walter Cronkite” effect, where readers come the journal for one purpose, but wind up engrossed by many of the journal’s other useful and engaging sections. It has a role, helping make political science more inclusive and equalizing. Since it is not broken, it does not need to be fixed. However, some minor changes might add still more value, as discussed next.

1. Symposia. These solicited, but peer-reviewed, collections are highly successful, and no change is recommended. This is a place where the editor in particular makes a mark.

2. Features. This section, which contains mainline, peer-reviewed, papers, has some identity problems. The term, “features” itself lacks clear positive meaning, and sounds “too high school”. Further, the fact that these papers are peer-reviewed needs more publicity. We recommend this section be re-named something like “Articles and Essays,” or perhaps simply “Papers.”

3. Spotlight. These are one or two papers appearing each issue under that title. They allow the editor to be innovative, focusing on important issues of the moment. No change is recommended here.

4. The Profession. This section offers articles which assess topics important for the professional political scientist. No changes recommended, other than to make clear these papers are also peer-reviewed.

4. The Teacher. This section focuses on papers to improve the teaching of political science. No changes recommended for this highly successful section, other than to make clear the papers are also peer-reviewed.

5. People. This section focuses on noteworthy“doings” of people in the profession. No changes recommended for this highly successful section.

6. Association News. This section offers news about the association. No changes recommended.

7. The Annual Meeting. This section, which focuses on the contents of the annual meeting, should be folded into the Association News section, and reduced in size as appropriate.

8. Visuals. Innovation in cover design should continue to be encouraged, including political cartoons.

II. FORMAT

Question: To what extent should PS move from a print edition to an online, interactive edition?

Answer: PS should continue to lead with its print edition, recalling that the core readership of PS remains an academic audience. However, its online edition, already up and running, has a serious presence. About 35% of the readership now opt for the online version of PS. This will likely increase, and advantage should be taken of that, especially the interactive possibilities, which would tend to vary by content section.

PS is uniquely situated among APSA supported journals to offer an innovative, elegant, user-friendly online platform that would provide the audience with a high quality interactive experience. The PS website could offer page-flip and/or .pdf versions replicating the hard copy journal, as well as digital versions of articles that accommodate comments and other interactive components. It could offer expanded features, such as supplementary material for articles, links to data sets and other resources, and short video clips. The PS website could facilitiate improved branding of both the journal and APSA. Members would have access to all of the web content. Some content could be made publicly available, while additional content could be accessible for a fee. We anticipate that the website will be attractive to journalists, policy makers, and politically interested members of the public. The time is right for this type of experimentation. Next, we make more specific recommendations:

1. A more attractive website is needed, supported by its own app, with the more useful functions that have been developed in recent years for online publications.

2. A link should be provided on the PS homepage to a PDF-version of the print publication. There could also be links there to the journal’s core sections, discussed earlier.

3. New material could be added to the website, such as pieces that couldn’t fit in the print version, and announcements of forthcoming articles.

4. In the print version each obituary, for example, could include a brief announcement at the end inviting APSA members to make an e-contribution of their own reflections.

5. Interactive commenting would generally be limited to APSA members. While some material would be open access, i.e., available to anyone with a browser, other material would be password protected. We envision a website that would include enough substantive material to attract the interest of general readers, students, and so on, but not one that would allow for anonymous postings, trolling, etc. For this reason we believe that everything that appears on the website, including comments, should be prescreened before it is published online.

6. A revamped PS website would help attract readers to PS, and stimulate public debate and dialogue through its open access materials. At the same time, it would enable contributors, and APSA itself, to take advantage of the web. For example, the online version of PS could lead readers to additional readings, useful data sets, video clips, and the APSA channel of youtube.com.

7. This new e-presence will clearly expand the workload of the PS offices. Therefore, an additional tech-saavy staff member should be hired to manage the website and the activities related to it.

III. ORGANIZATION

Question: Should PS continue to be based at APSA headquarters, and staffed by APSA?

Answer: The basic answer is “yes,” but some flexibility should be introduced into the formula. Suggestions are offered here:

The editor-in-chief would carry on the broad vision of the field that has characterized PS. In practice, that would mean an eye for timely topics, a sense of balance regarding the subfields, an appreciation for the types of institutions that deliver research and teaching on politics, and a commitment to diversity and educational missions of political science.

PS would continue to be produced at APSA headquarters, under the direction of a full-time managing editor, aided by a web assistant and a copyeditor.

The editor-in-chief would continue to be a political scientist, but not necessarily one physically based in Washington, DC. He or she could reside, for example, at a university elsewhere. (This might have the additional advantage of gaining extra resources, such as university-paid leave time for the editor-in-chief and/or editorial intern support.)

The editor-in-chief would be able to “ask the right questions” concerning the e-future of PS.

IV. PUBLICATIONS

Question: Should PS expand its publications? In print? Electronically?

Answer: The answer is “yes,” to both. There are opportunities in print and electronically that PS should take advantage of. Further, their current publisher, Cambridge Press, seems cooperative, including in the electronic area. These opportunities are discussed below.

With respect to print, we recommend the following:

1. An initial publication honoring Rob Hauck, in the form of a monograph of selected PS articles, entitled something like “Navigating the Profession.” (If the publication committee approves, this could be presented to him at the 2015 APSA. See the Appendix (next page) for such a monograph proposal.)

2. Exploration of a monograph series on topics such as teaching, writing, peer review, or symposia topics. (Cambridge might be interested in partnering with PS on this series. PS owns the copyright on all of its published papers.)

With respect to electronic, there are different possibilities:

1. Early release of symposia. (Cambridge University Press might be interested in this, if it were a partly gated website.)

2. Create a regular online e-presence for short research articles, effectively a new section of the journal, called something like PS Researcher. The articles would be peer-reviewed, with quick turnaround, and a limited interactive comments section. Such a presence would fulfill the growing call in the discipline for prompt but serious responses to important scholarly and social issues of the day.

3. Create a weekly online e-presence offering brief applications of political science research to current events topics, called something like PS Scholar. These comments would be reviewed by the editor-in-chief, and have a limited interactive comments section. Such a presence would help PS fulfill its public engagement mission.

These electonic expansions, in addition to keeping abreast of new directions in publishing, also justify the appointment of a qualified website assistant, and a qualified copyeditor. (The need for the website assistant appears obvious. What is less obvious is the increased need for good copyediting, which becomes more difficult as papers become more terse and timely. It is of course possible that one staff member might combine both web skills and copyediting skills).