Information for Contributors

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12658
• Published date: 01 March 2017
• Date: 01 March 2017

312 Public Administration Review • March | April 2017

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 77, Iss. 2, pp. 312–314. © 2017 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.12658.

Public Administration Review (PAR) is dedi-

cated to advancing theory and practice in

public administration. PAR ser ves a wide

range of audiences globally. As the preeminent

professional journal in public administration, Public

Administration Review (PAR) strives to publish

research that not only advances the science and

theory of public administration, but also incorporates

and addresses the realities of the practice of public

administration.

 e PAR editorial team takes pride in our rigorous

review process. Although we strive for rigor, we also

seek to provide quality service to our contributors.

Operationally, this means we try to of‌f er high qual-

ity, timely feedback.  e standard time for full peer

review is typically less than 90 days from receipt of

a manuscript to an editor’s decision. If our internal

editorial review concludes a manuscript is not suitable

for full peer review, then we usually have a deci-

sion to authors within 14 days after submission of a

manuscript.

As a professional journal, PAR encourages submis-

sions from both scholar and practitioners. Regardless

of the af‌f‌i liations of our authors, our readers value

research informed by practice and practice informed

by research. Since its founding in 1940, PAR has

regularly published articles contributed by practition-

ers. Recent examples include:

• Arinder, Max K. 2016. Bridging the Divide

between Evidence and Policy in Public Sector

Decision Making: A Practitioner’s Perspective.

Public Administration Review 76(3): 394-398.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/

puar.12572/full;

• Propheter, Geoffrey. 2016. Managerial

Experience and Organizational Performance: A

15-Year Panel Study of Local Assessors. Pub-

lic Administration Review 76(3): 438–446.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/

puar.12440/full.

We also encourage scholars and practitioners to consider

co-authorship as a means for co-producing relevant,

timely and quality research. Recent examples of PAR

articles involving practitioner—scholar partnerships are:

• Buick, Fiona, Deborah Blackman, Janine

O’Flynn, Michael O’Donnell, and Damian

West. 2016. Effective Practitioner–Scholar Rela-

tionships: Lessons from a Coproduction Partner-

ship. Public Administration Review 76(1): 35-47.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/

puar.12481/full;

• Brinkerhoff, Derick W., and Anna Wetterberg.

2016. Gauging the Effects of Social Account-

ability on Services, Governance, and Citizen

Empowerment. Public Administration Review

76(2): 274-286. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/

doi/10.1111/puar.12399/full;

• Kelman, Steven, Ronald Sanders, and Gayatri

Pandit. 2016. “I Won’t Back Down?”: Com-

plexity and Courage in Government Executive

Decision Making. Public Administration Review

76(3): 465–471. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/

doi/10.1111/puar.12476/full;

• Seidle, Brett, Sergio Fernandez, and James L.

Perry. 2016. Do Leadership Training and Devel-

opment Make a Difference in the Public Sector?

A Panel Study. Public Administration Review

76(4): 603-613. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/

doi/10.1111/puar.12531/full;

• del Pino, Eloísa, Inés Calzada, and José M.

Díaz-Pulido. 2016. Conceptualizing and

Explaining Bureauphobia: Contours, Scope,

and Determinants. Public Administration Review

76(5): 725–736. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/

doi/10.1111/puar.12570/full;

• ben-Aaron, James, Matthew Denny, Bruce

Desmarais, and Hanna Wallach. 2017. Trans-

parency by Conformity: A Field Experiment

Evaluating Openness in Local Governments.

Public Administration Review 77(1): 66–75.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/

puar.12596/full.

Information for Contributors