Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T21:42:59.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Report of the Book Review Editor

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2022

Philip Siegelman
Philip Siegelman*
Affiliation:
San Francisco State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Other
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 9 , Issue 4 , Fall 1976 , pp. 430 - 433
Copyright
Copyright © The American Political Science Association 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Shortly after the selection of the new managing editor in September 1976, we established January 1, 1977, as the date when I should stop issuing invitations to review new books. As of that date, all new books received have been sent to Paul Beck in Pittsburgh.

2 It would be nice to have more precise information about future submissions. But the plain fact is that reviews are only rarely delivered on or near the promised due date and that many promised reviews are never delivered at all.

3 The scorecard on review essays is given in Table 2.

4 This is not quite accurate. For some months now during the period when my secretarial help has gradually disappeared, we have been less and less able to maintain our usual supervision of late reviews. At this point, we are no longer sending out dunning letters to late reviewers.

5 Unlike book reviews, review essays were solicited on “spec,” with the understanding that they would have to survive the peer review process.

6 Chances are, there isn't any single expert on the whole show; even Nelson has been known to surprise himself with a spontaneous piece of self-mockery just at the point at which panegyrics and affirmations become a bit heady.