Welcome from the Editors

Abstract

We are excited to take the helm at JEPS and honored to follow previous editorial teams, who collectively have established JEPS as the journal of record for experimental research in political science. We are especially grateful to Kevin (Vin) Arceneaux who served as editor for 5 years. Under Vin’s leadership, the journal introduced new article formats and adopted a “strong” associate editor model. These policies have elevated the quality of the research that ultimately appears in the journal, and we plan to continue them. Before describing journal policies in more detail, we would like to introduce the team of Associate Editors who will serve with us. They are Bert Bakker (Senior Associate Editor), Claire Adida, Matthew Hayes, Holger Kern, Jonathan Renshon, John Barry Ryan, Beth Simas, and Gijs Schumacher. This is an impressive group of scholars whose expertise in different areas of experimental research will help ensure the methodological diversity of the journal. Consistent with the previous editorship, Associate Editors will have complete autonomy over manuscripts that have been assigned to them. The two Editors will share the task of reviewing with the Associate Editors, taking on submissions that are relevant to their expertise. The Senior Associate Editor will serve as Acting Editor when a submission presents a conflict of interest for either Editor. Since JEPS was founded in 2014, experiments have “evolved from an emergent method to an accepted method to a primary method” (Druckman and Green 2021, p. 1). This evolution reflects the distinctive advantages of experimentation when it comes to identifying causal effects. There’s no denying that it also is easier to conduct experiments today than it was two decades ago (e.g., in terms of data availability and technological advances). Yet, the ease of conducting experiments belies the challenges of using this method effectively. A high-quality experiment must provide: (1) a theoretical and/or empirical contribution, (2) appropriate comparisons in a well-powered design, and (3) statistical analyses that are informative and transparent. While JEPS takes a broad view of what counts as an experiment, authors must articulate how their design identifies the causal effect that they are studying. To preserve an already overburdened reviewer pool, submissions that do not meet the above criteria will be desk-rejected. Past practice at the journal has demonstrated that desk rejects can be used in a fair manner, and we strive to do the same.