Suggested ASR Reviewer Guidelines for Theory Papers

July 2015

At ASR we are committed to showcasing the full range of work produced by sociologists today. This includes papers whose primary contribution is conceptual or theoretical. However, we are also very aware that evaluating “theory” papers is more difficult than evaluating traditional empirically oriented work, as these typeof papers may not conform to the narrative structure typical of empiricalpapers (e.g., conceptual introduction and hypotheses, followed by an empiricalsection, and closing with a discussion section). To that end, we are providingyou with a set of optional guidelines that reflect the particular points tocover in your evaluation that would be most helpful for us in our job aseditors.

1. Basic Objectives/Summary of Argument. 

What are the paper’s basic analytic objectives asyou understand them? What is the paper’s main theoretical argument? What sort of conceptual or substantive issues or outstanding empirical puzzles does the paper set out to deal with or solve? What are the main strengths of the paper? A short (few sentences to one-paragraph) summaryto this effect would suffice.

2. Assessment of theTheoretical Contribution.

2.1 To be publishable in ASR, a theoretical paper must make a substantial conceptual contribution.By this we mean a paper must provide a major conceptual innovation, introduce anovel set of ideas, or provide an important analytical tool that is of interest to a broad cross section of sociologists acrosssub-disciplinary substantive subfields. We are interested in your assessment of whether this paper meets this criterion. If the paper currently falls short ofthis standard, we are interested in whether you believe that the paper can berevised to reach it. If you do not believe that a revision to this effect ispossible or feasible, then we ask you to please recommend the sort of specialist outlet for which the paper would be more appropriate.  

2.2 To be publishable in ASR, atheory paper must also make an enduring conceptualcontribution. We aim to publish the sort of papers that will continue to berelevant in setting the agenda and in guiding empirical work for years to come.We would like you to comment on whether the present paper meets this standard.If not, please comment on whether the paper has this sort of potential and howit could be more effectively revised to reach it.

2.2.1 We would be most interested in yourassessment of the  manuscript in regards to the following questions:

2.2.2 Does the paper develop, extend, or advance sociological theory in a significant way?

2.2.3 Is the topic important and interesting?Does the manuscript pass the “so what” test?

2.2.4 Is relevant literature cited accurately? If relevant literature is missing, can you point the authors towardthat literature?

2.2.5 Does the paper have clear implicationsfor future research?

2.2.6 Is the paper's contribution commensurate with its length?

3. Assessment of the Consistency/Coherenceof the Conceptual Argument. 

To be published in ASR, a theorypaper should meet the most rigorous standards of conceptual clarity, analytic coherence, and logical argumentation. In fact, this is the corecriterion that a theoretical paper must meet (in addition to broad appeal). Thus,we are particularly interested in your evaluation of this aspect of the paper.We would encourage you to provide a narrative, as detailed as you deem appropriate, in which you identify any critical issues that this paper mighthave in this respect. In particular, we are interested in your responses to thefollowing questions:

3.1 Is the paper clearly and competently argued? This means refraining fromstrawman, ad hominem, non sequiturs, circular reasoning, or other logicalfallacies.

3.2 Is the paper consistent with previousknowledge, while innovatively building from it? This means identifying and pointing toany substantive knowledge claims that you know to be misstated or inaccurate.

3.3 Does the paper identify animportant analytic issue or outstanding problem worthy of sustainedengagement and attention?

3.4 Does the paper provide concise, precise, andunambiguous definitions of key concepts? This means pointing to issues ofimprecision, fuzziness, and inconsistent use of key concepts.

3.5 Are there internal contradictions or inconsistencies in the coretheoretical argument?

4. Avoiding Adjudication of the Argument from Hostile Perspectives. 

sometimes, theory papers mayincite heated opposition from readers disposed to view a given issue from anopposed or hostile theoretical camp or school. A reviewer may feel that atheoretical argument is “wrong” when what they really mean is “incompatiblewith my own presuppositions.” We ask that you to try to refrain from writing areview consisting mainly of a point-by-point counter-argument basedon your own conceptual commitments (which may be alien to the author). If youfeel you are not able to provide an objective evaluation of the paper for its own theoretical merits, we would be grateful if you can let us know that in the confidential comments to the editor.

5. Attempt to be Developmental. 

Theory papers are particularly likely tobenefit from a “developmental” review process. To that end, it is important torecognize a paper’s strengths as well as areas for improvement. The focus of your review should be on helping the author extract and showcase the coreconceptual contribution of the manuscript, clarify the exposition of the mainideas, and articulate their importance in a better way. Try to find the kernels of good theoretical ideas, even if they are hidden in the manuscript, in aneffort to provide authors direction regarding those ideas with the mostpromise. Helping to develop the theoretical ideas of other scholars can be asignificant contribution to our field.

转载自《Suggested ASR Reviewer Guidelines for Theory Papers》

【看完我想说：教练 ,我想换个篮球！】

（Sociological理论大缸第36期（转载））