Guidelines for Reviewers

Your comments are extremely helpful to the editors as well as the author. Some guideposts that we would have you keep in mind as you read the manuscript are:

1. Does the article say something new that is also significant? Does it advance the analysis of its subject?
2. If it does not say something new, does it restate the problem or issue in such a way that notable insight is gained?
3. Does it ignore obvious difficulties, logical or bibliographical? Does it reflect knowledge of the literature of its subjects?
4. Does it inform about or draw attention to a topic about which we need to be reminded in order to understand better the present configuration of thought and of political things?
5. Is it written clearly and understandably? Is the thesis or conclusion supported by the evidence adduced?
6. Finally, is it important enough to be published in THE REVIEW OF POLITICS?

General Evaluation

1. A seminal and path-breaking article.
2. An important contribution to the literature.
3. The manuscript should be published subject to the revisions specified on the report you submitted.
4. The manuscript does not warrant publication.