---
name: apsr-review-process
description: Use to understand how the American Political Science Review (APSR) evaluates a manuscript — double-anonymous review, desk-rejection screening (remit / ethics / substance), the reject / accept / revise-and-resubmit decision categories, editor discretion, and the Registered Reports route. Sets expectations and shapes the paper to survive review; it does not contact editors.
---

# 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`).

## Shape the paper to pass

- Make general significance explicit (avoids "insufficiently significant" desk rejection).
- Engage the relevant literatures, including across subfields (avoids the literature desk-rejection).
- Clear ethics/IRB and human-subjects compliance up front.
- Write to expert reviewers: anticipate the strongest objection and answer it in the design.

## 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