Submitting to the Review

Authors may submit original and previously unpublished works to policyreview@wm.edu. There is no minimum or maximum length, but successful submissions generally are within a thirty to fifty page range. The Review may request to modify the length of an accepted paper. The Review follows Chicago Manual of Style citation guidelines, and prefers submissions that do the same. Authors who submit articles following Blue Book or other citation styles may be asked to convert their citations to Chicago as a condition for publication. Submissions to the Review should be in Word formatting and include (1) the lead author’s curriculum vitae or resume with contact information, (2) the abstract, (3) the paper, and (4) a statement of whether the paper is under review at other journals.

The submissions and peer-review process for papers submitted exclusively to the William & Mary Policy Review lasts approximately six weeks. Papers concurrently submitted to multiple publications are only subject to a peer-review after an initial screening by the submissions committee and a contingent copyright agreement has been extended by the Review.


Editorial Process Overview

This is a brief description of our Editorial Process and a prospective timeline following the peer reviewer process:

Assigning Articles

1. Once articles for the upcoming issue have been agreed upon by the Editorial Council and the author has signed an agreement, the senior editorial board will assign each article to an Articles Editor, keeping in mind the stated policy preferences of each.

2. The Managing Editor, with input from the other Senior Editors, will assign Associate Editors to each Articles Editor, again keeping in mind stated policy/topical interest and working relationships.

3. Articles will be assigned on a rolling basis

Establish Editing Schedule

1. With each Articles Editor, the Managing Editor will set a timeline for source pulls, cite checks, and substantive edits for Associate Editors

2. Managing Editor sets a deadline for the Articles Editor to have all substantive edits completed and ready for review by the Editor-in-Chief and Managing Editor.

 

Articles Editor

1. Divide sources equitably between ASEs for pulling and uploading into the assigned folder in the Google drive. Each Articles Editor will have a subfolder for each article.

2. Divide citations equitably between Associate Editors and enforce the timeline established by the Managing Editor for completion.

3. Review cite checks performed by Associate Editors for accuracy

4. Perform a substantive edit of the article before deadline and send edited copy to the Managing Editor and Editor-in-Chief.

Managing Editor and Editor-in-Chief

1. Both the Managing Editor and Editor-in-Chief will perform a substantive edit and reconcile differences in edits with one another.

2. Meet with Articles Editor as needed about article and send edited draft to author for approval of suggested edits.

3. Editor-in-Chief and Managing Editor reconcile any changes sent back from the author with current proof; send to the Executive Editor for his/her technical edit.

4. Send to the author for his/her final 24-hour approval

5. Once each article has received final author approval, compile the manuscript

6. Senior Editors sign off on the proof of the final manuscript

7. Send final version to printer

Example Editing Timeline:

  • Day one: Split up citations and give to ASE’s
  • Day three: Argument Assessment/Pull Sources/ILL requests
  • Week Three: Cite check (ASEs) and 1st review (AE)
  • Week Four: Cite check (ASEs) and 2nd review (AE)
  • Week Five: Substantive edits complete (ASEs to AEs)
  • Week Six: Substantive edits complete (AEs to ME/EIC)
  • Week Seven: Substantive Edits Complete/Send to author (ME/EIC to Author)
  • Week Nine: Author returns article to editors
  • Week Ten: Second round of edits returned to author
  • Week Twelve: Final approval received from author