View Current Issue: AJPS 70:3 – July 2026
Blogs:
The American Journal of Political Science is taking a brief hiatus from Friday, August 14th at 5:00 PM Eastern to Tuesday, September 8th at 12:00 AM Eastern. During this time, we won’t accept new or revised manuscripts and you will not be able to see the review status of manuscripts that you previously submitted. However, you’ll still be able to submit reviews and we will continue to make decisions during this short break.
Please be aware of potential scams and phishing emails impersonating the AJPS Editors or Editorial Board. The MPSA has been alerted that such attempts are currently circulating. Please delete any suspicious messages immediately. If you receive a communication claiming affiliation with the AJPS or MPSA and are unsure of its legitimacy, contact the MPSA at mpsainfo@mpsanet.org. AJPS communications are sent exclusively from ajps.org email addresses – please do not engage with messages from any other domain claiming to represent the AJPS office or editorial team.
Revised AJPS Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy for Authors and Reviewers
From: Dan Reiter and Adam Berinsky, Editors-in-Chief
The American Journal of Political Science has just published a revised artificial intelligence (AI) policy for authors and reviewers, available here. This new policy reflects our desire to prioritize the principles of transparency and accountability in the use of AI.
This policy change is the result of months of ongoing dialogue within the AJPS editorial staff, with other journal editors both inside and outside of political science, with our publisher Wiley, and with the scholarly community at large.
That dialogue revealed to us a few insights. First, the capacity of AI and the norms about using AI are evolving rapidly, and will continue to do so. AJPS remains committed to crafting policy that reflects these changes, and will be open to revising its AI policy as needed.
Second, there are sharp divisions of opinion about AI use within political science. To put it simply, a number of scholars see AI as a tremendously useful tool, and welcome the opportunity to use AI in a variety of different roles, including idea generation, theory generation, literature review, aiding with writing, data collection and analysis, and others. Other scholars are sharply opposed to any use of AI except for the most narrow uses, such as copyediting. These divisions mirror broader debates within academia.
We wish to highlight some aspects of our revised AI policy.
First, AJPS is published by Wiley, and our AI policies must conform with Wiley AI policies. Some of Wiley’s concerns are driven by potential legal issues, such as AI use infringing on copyright. Some of the key language in our AI policies reflects closely Wiley AI policies.
Second, we recognize that like all AI policies ours contains gray areas subject to interpretation. If an author or reviewer is in doubt about whether a particular use of AI is in violation of our policy, they are encouraged to contact us directly.
Pre-Analysis Plans (PAP) Policy Change
From: Dan Reiter and Adam Berinsky, Editors-in-Chief
We recently clarified our policy regarding the execution of pre-analysis plans and the reporting of supplemental materials. These changes are in line with our general goal of increasing transparency in the reporting of research in AJPS.
On May 8, 2026, AJPS posted new policy language, as follows:
“Manuscripts must describe their research designs and results consistently and accurately, across the manuscript text, supplemental information, and pre-analysis plans. If there are differences between portions of these materials, such as the manuscript testing a hypothesis that is not pre-registered, those differences should be clearly noted in the main text (or footnotes to the main text), to ensure transparency for readers.”
Note that current AJPS policy does not require pre-analysis plans; that policy remains unchanged. Current AJPS policy does not require strict adherence to pre-analysis plans; that also remains unchanged. The goal of the clarified policy language is to improve transparency for readers.
We note that improving transparency also assists manuscript authors themselves. We have observed that reviewers sometime become suspicious when they uncover discrepancies from posted pre-analysis plans or other discrepancies in the supplemental materials that are not clearly flagged in the text. Improved transparency helps avoid this kind of reviewer reaction.
Update to the AJPS AI Policy for Authors
From: Dan Reiter and Adam Berinsky, Editors-in-Chief
Last year, we introduced a set of policies concerning the use of AI at AJPS for both authors and reviewers. We have recently updated these guidelines. The current guidelines are presented below:
AI Disclosure Policy for Authors
American Journal of Political Science requires that manuscript authors disclose the use of any artificial intelligence tools in the preparation of a submitted manuscript or in any research conducted to produce the manuscript. This disclosure must be included in the text or footnotes of the manuscript and in the Author Questionnaire at submission.
Authors should report the following:
What AI was used for. Describe the specific tasks for which AI tools were employed. Common uses include data collection and management, copyediting, code generation, data processing, literature search, research design, and statistical analysis. Authors should distinguish between uses that directly shaped manuscript content (e.g., collecting data, generating analysis code) and those that supported the writing process (e.g., proofreading, formatting, citation verification, drafting or revising individual passages).
Which tools were used. Identify each AI tool by name, provider, and version (e.g., “Claude Opus 4, Anthropic” or “GPT-4o-mini-2024-12-17, OpenAI”). Generic labels such as “ChatGPT” or “an AI assistant” are insufficient. If the exact version is unavailable, authors should report the most specific identification possible, approximately the dates that AI was used (to aid reviewers in identifying the version used) and note that the precise version was not recorded. If multiple tools were used for different purposes, indicate which tool was used for which task.
How human oversight was maintained. Describe the degree of human review applied to AI outputs. Indicate whether AI-generated content was reviewed, edited, or approved by the authors before incorporation, and who performed this review (e.g., the PI, a research assistant, a domain expert).
Authors should avoid using artificial intelligence to draft the manuscript or substantial elements of the manuscript, such as (but not limited to) the literature review, theoretical framework, or interpretation of results. It is the responsibility of the authors to ensure the accuracy and validity of any elements produced or informed by artificial intelligence, including the accuracy of citations, direct quotes from other sources, statistical claims, and factual assertions. Authors must also comply with Wiley’s AI guidelines for researchers.
New AJPS Correspondence and Corrections Policies
From: Dan Reiter and Adam Berinsky, Editors-in-Chief
This post describes new policies at AJPS regarding Correspondence and Corrections.
Maintaining an accurate scholarly record is one of the most important responsibilities of a journal. When findings published in AJPS contain significant errors, the discipline is best served when those errors are identified, evaluated, and addressed publicly.
Until now, AJPS has not had a dedicated channel for publishing critical reanalyses by scholars other than the original authors. We are introducing one.
AJPS will now publish short critical essays called “Correspondence” in which scholars who are not the original authors challenge the central claims of a previously published AJPS article. Correspondence submissions have a 4,000-word limit. The title of each Correspondence piece will follow a standardized format beginning with the word “Correspondence,” as in “Correspondence: [Original Article Title], A Reanalysis and Discussion,” to help distinguish Correspondence from full-length articles and research notes.
Correspondence at AJPS will be confined to submissions that convincingly challenge the central claims of a recently published AJPS manuscript. We will be especially likely to consider Correspondence submissions that provide broader contributions beyond narrowly refuting the claims in the previously published work—for example, new data collection, multiple replications, or methodological insights. Correspondence submissions that are not desk rejected will undergo external review.