The ongoing “historical turn” in political science makes it more important than ever that we, as a profession, have open conversations about the nature of the evidence we enlist from trained historians. This article emphasizes that “history” should be recognized as an—often speculative and incomplete—interpretation of bygone times and places that we no longer can know for sure. Much of what we commonly believe about the past depends on narrative sources written long after the fact and influenced by later circumstances and points of view, on outdated historical research, or on singular and often biased contemporary sources. Discussing how to respond to this “problem of history,” the article calls for a shift of cognitive style: that is, treating the work of historians in a more self-conscious and critical way and clearly signaling this when we present our research. Three more particular guidelines—be up-to-date, be specific, and be cautious—exemplify this approach.

Political scientists are increasingly using digitized documents from archives. This article is a practical introduction to doing digital archival research. First, it explains when and why political scientists use evidence from archival research. Second, it argues that the remote accessibility of digitized records provides new opportunities for comparative and transnational research. However, digital archival research also risks aggravating five types of biases that pose challenges for qualitative, quantitative, interpretive, and mixed-methods research: survival, transfer, digitization, and reinforcement bias at the level of record collection and source bias at the level of record creation. Third, this article offers concrete strategies for anticipating and mitigating these biases by walking readers through the experience of entering, being in, and leaving an archive, while also underscoring the importance of learning the structure of an archive. The article concludes by addressing the ethical implications to archival research as a type of field research for political scientists.

There is a substantial amount of research examining bias in the peer-review process and its influence on the quality and content of political science journal articles. However, there is limited research examining how students peer review other undergraduate research for publication. To better understand the predictors of manuscript evaluations and build on prior literature, this study examines seven years of undergraduate peer evaluations submitted to the Pi Sigma Alpha Undergraduate Journal of Politics from 2013 to 2020. Empirical analyses reveal that a peer reviewer’s prior service on the editorial board (i.e., experience) and race are consistently and significantly associated with manuscript evaluations. By examining how undergraduate peer reviewers assess anonymized manuscripts, this research reveals potential biases in the political science peer-review process. Additionally, the benefits of undergraduate students participating in the peer-review process are explored and discussed.