I have just completed a 3.75 year tenure as an associate editor of the American Political Science Review. Over that time, as one of six associate editors, I have managed the review process for 742 manuscripts, about 200 per year. Here are some departing thoughts on the job in no particular order and with no overarching thesis.
I wish the new editorial team well. Being an editor is a constant, low-level source of stress.
A couple years ago, I wrote a post on my journal review debt, which I defined as the difference between the number of peer reviews I had completed and the number I had caused other political scientists to write. I am going to be an Associate Editor for the American Political Science Review starting September 1, which is going to mess up this calculation of journal review debt because it does not take into account editorial work (an omission for which I will shortly be receiving my comeuppance).
For a while, I have wondered just how many more peer reviews I have caused to be written than I have written myself. I suspect that this kind of journal review debt is more or less inevitable as an early-career scholar. So rather than write a review that is due today, I decided to go back through my records to figure this out before it became too overwhelming to do so.
I am a Professor of Political Science at University College London. From 2011-2018 I was on the faculty at the London School of Economics. I have been a Senior Data Science Advisor to YouGov since 2016 and was previously an Associate Editor of the American Political Science Review (2016-2020). My research is focused on the measurement of political preferences from survey, voting, network and text data. Applications of these methods have included citizens, legislators and judges in the US, UK and EU.