A Look Behind the Scenes

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02559.x
• Published date: 01 March 2012
• Date: 01 March 2012
• Author: Michael McGuire

Editorial

Editorial 171

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 72, Iss. 2, pp. 171–172. © 2012 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.111/j.1540-6210.2011.02559.x.

A Look Behind the Scenes

Michael McGuire

Indiana University Bloomington

As I write this, the current editorial team for

Public Administration Review is entering its

sixth month of operation. Administrative

operations for the journal have changed dramatically

since our editorial team assumed responsibility for

PAR on July 1, 2011.  e learning curve for all of us

has been precipitous, and I now truly appreciate the

tireless work of my predecessor, Jos Raadschelders. We

are all learning, and learning quickly, how to manage

an extraordinary journal.

PAR now uses the Editorial Manager software to

manage manuscript submission and the peer review

process. Editorial Manager enables consistent tracking

of manuscripts, authors, and reviewers. Among other

features, the software generates customizable letters to

authors and reviewers, automated reminders to review-

ers, and reports on editors’ decisions and reviewers’

activities.  e system can be accessed at http://www.

editorialmanager.com/par/. Guidelines for submissions

can be found at the publisher’s Web site, Wiley Online

(http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/%28IS

SN%291540-6210). I ask that you follow these guide-

lines carefully to ensure timely processing of your paper.

 e primary operational goal of PAR is to minimize

the elapsed time between an initial manuscript submis-

sion, an editorial decision, and, if the paper is accepted,

publication.  us far, with few exceptions, the edito-

rial team has been able to provide an initial editorial

decision to authors quickly.  e f‌i rst step in providing

timely service to our authors is to begin processing the

paper as soon as possible after submission. Within just

a few business days after submission, and in many cases

just a few hours, reviewers are selected and invited.

When we began in July, we took responsibility for 85

manuscripts in the review pipeline. Since July 1, PAR

has been receiving, on average, 40 manuscripts per

month through Editorial Manager (approximately 500

per year!).  e average time to an initial editorial deci-

sion is less than 27 days, including those papers that

were rejected without review.  e average time to an

“accept” or “revise” decision is approximately 45 days

when we include only those papers sent out for review.

We plan to continue the short cycle from submission

to editorial decision as a service to authors and readers.

 e most signif‌i cant factor in making a timely

editorial decision is how long it takes for a reviewer

to complete the review. In messages sent to reviewers

soliciting their input, reviewers are asked to com-

plete the review within 30 days. Editorial Manager

sends automated reminders, which improves reviewer

response time. However, PAR’s customer service is

only as good as the timeliness of the reviewers; keep-

ing the commitment to review a paper in 30 days is

important for our authors.

Our process for selecting reviewers is meticulous, but

we are not infallible. We have established rules to

assist us in selection. Because of their familiarity with

related literature, we select reviewers who are content

area experts.  ese reviewers are best suited to evaluate

a manuscript’s potential contribution to the f‌i eld. We

also strive to make sure some, if not all, of the review-

ers are methodological experts in the research methods

used.  is is especially important for manuscripts that

employ advanced or uncommon methodologies. If the

authors seek to make an argument about more general

concepts (e.g., management, leadership, motiva-

tion), at least one reviewer is recruited from outside

of the traditional public management/administration

professional f‌i eld. By helping reduce silos between

academic disciplines, this practice promotes cross-

disciplinary thought. Additionally, when it is relevant,

we incorporate practitioners at the latter stages of the

review process as a means to help authors consider the

applicability of their f‌i ndings to practice.

PAR’s acceptance rate from July to December 2011

is about 10 percent. Approximately 40 percent of the

manuscripts submitted have been rejected without

being sent to reviewers, which is in line with the norm

across many journals.  ese “desk rejects” include

manuscripts that are missing key components of a

polished paper or that were determined to be inappro-

priate for PAR.  e primary reasons for not sending

a manuscript out to reviewers are that the paper does

not advance our knowledge of public administration

and/or does not provide an opportunity for schol-

ars and practitioners to build on and broaden their

existing frameworks and perspectives.  us, our f‌i nal

decisions often come down to considerations such as

the f‌i t of the manuscript with PAR ’s readership and