Author Guidelines
The journal receives articles all year round. After receiving an article, the editorial team communicates within 10 days whether the article goes through peer review process or is rejected. The editorial process is estimated to take between 4 and 10 months. It should be noted that the journal receives about 200 articles per year and only publishes a small percentage (20%) of the submissions we receive, so it only sends for review those articles that are considered to have a high chance of being published.
Editorial Guidelines
All manuscripts must be submitted in electronic format through the online system found on our website.
Manuscripts may be submitted in either Microsoft Word or LaTex. Those submitting in the latter format should also attach auxiliary files as well as a PDF version.
Manuscripts must be original and may not contain parts previously published elsewhere. Authors should acknowledge that their work conforms to these guidelines.
Manuscript preparation
We are currently implementing a free format model, in which the first submission has no rigid requirements for citation style, font, margins and formatting. Only after the articles receive a conditional acceptance, they should be adjusted to the style required by RCP.
On a separate sheet, which will be removed for refereeing purposes, a short biography of each of the authors of 50-100 words (including their most relevant academic degrees and current employment) should be included. It must also include institutional affiliation, postal address, e-mail and telephone number.
A summary (in Spanish) and an abstract (in English) of the work, of no more than 150 words each and four key words, should be included.
Formal style requirements
Articles should have a minimum length of 6,000 words and a maximum length of 9,000 words (including tables, figures, and bibliographical references). Online appendices may be submitted and will be published in addition to the article. They should not exceed 2,500 words in length. Manuscripts should be written with 1.5 line spacing and leaving significant margins to the right and left of the text.
Section headings and subheadings should be clear and concise. They should not be underlined. Long quotations (those exceeding 40 words) should be placed in block, in the text. Tables and figures should have descriptive titles. All table notes with their sources should be immediately below the table. Column headings in tables should clearly define the data presented.
To guarantee the anonymity of the peer review process, self-citations should be removed from the text.
We use a parenthetical citation system, which includes the information of the sources and materials consulted in the body of the text: (Waltz 1979: 16). Multiple works should be ordered from oldest to youngest, separated by semicolons: (Waltz 1979; Mearsheimer 2001). Multiple works by the same author should also be ordered by author and separated by a comma: (Rawls 1971, 1993, 1993, 2001). Use "et al." when citing a work by more than two authors.
A complete bibliography should be included at the end of the paper. The bibliography should be arranged alphabetically and works by the same author should be listed chronologically. Use "et al." when citing a paper by more than two authors.
Basic rules for citation:
ü Authors using the EndNote reference manager can download the RCP output style here.
ü Authors using the Zotero reference manager can download the RCP output style here.
ü Authors using the Mendeley reference manager can download the RCP output style here .
Journal articles:
Jones, Mark P. 1995. “A Guide to the Electoral System of the Americas.” Electoral Studies 14(1): 5-2.
Journal articles (multiple authors):
Downs, George W., David M. Rocke y Peter N. Barsoom. 1996. “Is the Good News About Compliance Good News About Cooperation?” International Organization 50(3): 379-406.
Books:
Dahl, Robert. 1971. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Edited books:
Mainwaring, Scott y Timothy R. Scully (eds.). 2009. Democratic Governance in Latin America. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Books chapters:
Scully, Timothy R. 1995. “Reconstituting Party Politics in Chile.” En Building Democratic Institutions, editado por Scott Mainwaring y Timothy R. Scully. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 100-137.
Papers and working documents:
Achen, Christopher H. 2001. “Why Lagged Dependent Variables Can Suppress the Explanatory Power of Other Independent Variables.” Ponencia presentada en Annual Meeting of the Political Methodology Section of the American Political Science Association, Los Angeles, 20-22 de julio.
Electronic sources (with author):
Harzing, Anne-Wil. 2016, 6 de febrero. “Publish or Perish.” Recuperado el 26 de noviembre de 2016 de http://www.harzing.com/resources/publish-or-perish.
Electronic sources (no author):
The Economist. 2006, 7 de diciembre. “Latin America: It’s Democracy, Stupid.” Recuperado el 26 de noviembre de 2016 de http://www.economist.com/node/8381770.
Evaluation process
All manuscripts submitted to Revista de Ciencia Política (RCP) undergo a rigorous evaluation process according to the standards of the discipline. In the first instance, each manuscript is evaluated by the editorial team in terms of its quality and relevance to the objectives and scope of the journal. Typically, this first instance of evaluation takes place during the first two weeks after the manuscript is received. Within this period, the editor notifies all authors whose papers are rejected ex officio and therefore are not sent to the external peer review process. In that case, authors will receive a letter from the editors explaining their editorial decision.
Manuscripts that do pass the blind peer review stage usually receive an editorial decision less than three months after the process is initiated. There are four possible outcomes: acceptance without modification, conditional acceptance on minor changes, revision & resubmission, and rejection. The vast majority of manuscripts that proceed to the blind peer review stage receive either a rejection decision or an invitation to revise & resubmit. Rarely is a manuscript accepted (with or without conditions) after an initial external peer review. Authors who are invited to revise and resubmit their manuscript must make modifications within the indicated time frame (usually six months). Manuscripts submitted after this deadline are considered as new submissions and are therefore re-submitted for the first two stages of review. Revised manuscripts that are submitted within the deadline are typically resubmitted to the same external reviewers from the previous stage for a third round of reviews. In some cases, the third round of reviews is at the editors' expense. The final decision on each manuscript is always made by the journal editors.
