Manuscript Review Series

Scheduling a manuscript review
The center needs as much time as possible (six months or more) to confirm senior discussants for a manuscript. The best way to finalize a date is for the author to think about a realistic but somewhat ambitious hard deadline by which the author can have a complete manuscript ready. Then we move one month further and schedule that date as the actual review. The author must realize that the actual date will have to adjust to the availability of three external discussants, and thus might occur near but not on the ideal date.

Author Deadlines
One month before the scheduled review is a hard deadline for the author to submit the full manuscript to CIS to ensure that the discussants have plenty of time to read it carefully. The author must choose a realistic date by which to complete a full draft.

Discussants
In general, the manuscript is an author’s first, and thus, tenure, book. Therefore, the author needs it to speak to as wide an audience as possible. In terms of discussants, it does not benefit the author to have three discussants from the same field, or who know either the book or the author too well. Rather, this is an important opportunity for the author to meet and impress three senior scholars who may review the book for a press, or who may write a tenure letter. This means that the choice of discussants should be strategic – there are some excellent scholars who are unlikely to review the book or write tenure letters, and in general they should be avoided unless there is a compelling reason not to. That is, the review is partly about helping the author market the book and the ideas and to increase the author’s visibility, in addition to getting help for the actual book. The list should include roughly half senior scholars who are directly in the author’s field and roughly half who are in a “+1” field – a related field that is similar to but not directly in the author’s field. It is important to have discussants from related fields – most books must speak to larger audiences, and certainly any tenure decision will include scholars from related fields. For example, a book on nuclear deterrence might have a discussant who is a specialist in IPE; or a book on Asian security might have a discussant who is conversant on alliances but not a regional expert.

Finalizing the Manuscript Review
CIS will contact the professors and go down the list until three discussants have been finalized. This not only protects the author from being “rejected” it’s also quite a hassle and often senior discussants want to haggle over fees or dates, in which case it is much easier to have a third party (i.e., the director) do the negotiating and contacting, rather than the author.
An author wishing to propose a manuscript review must submit the following items to the CIS director:
One-paragraph book précis
Ideal date for the manuscript review
List of six names, three directly in the author’s field, three in a +1 field

Sherry Zaks, assistant professor of political science
Title: “Resilience Beyond Rebellion: How Wartime Organizational Structures affect Rebel-to-Party Transformation”
Moderator: Gerardo L. Munck, University of Southern California
Discussants:
Paul Staniland, University of Chicago
Anna Grzymala-Busse, Stanford University
Reyko Huang, Texas A&M University

Erin Baggott Carter, assistant professor of international relations
Title: “Changing Each Other: US-China Relations in the Shadow of Domestic Politics”
Moderator: Carol Wise, University of Southern California
Discussants:
Susan Shirk, University of California, San Diego
David Shambaugh, George Washington University
Stephan Haggard, University of California, San Diego

Allison Hartnett, assistant professor of political science and international relations
Title: “Regressive Redistribution: Inequality and State-Building in Post-Colonial Autocracies”.
Moderator: Gerardo L. Munck, University of Southern California
Discussants:
Alexander Lee, University of Rochester
Melissa Rogers, Claremont Graduate University
David Waldner, University of Virginia

Brett Carter, assistant professor of international relations
Title “Autocracy in Post-Cold War Africa”
Moderator: Gerardo L. Munck, University of Southern California
Discussants:
Jennifer Gandhi, Emory University
Daniel Treisman, University of California, Los Angeles
Nicolas van de Walle, Cornell University

Stephanie Schwartz, assistant professor of international relations
Title: “Homeward Bound: Refugee Return & Local Conflict after Civil War.”
Moderator: Carol Wise, University of Southern California
Discussants:
Fiona Adamson, SOAS University of London
Michael Barnett, George Washington University

Jacques Hymans, assistant professor of international relations
Title: “Nations and Denominations: The Politics of National Identity and Paper Money”
Moderator: Saori Katada, University of Southern California
Discussants:
Richard Herrmann, The Ohio State University
Mala Htun, University of New Mexico
Kathleen McNamara, Georgetown University

Christian Dyogi Phillips, assistant professor of political science
Title: “Nowhere to Run: Race, Gender and Immigration in American Politics.”
Moderators: Ange-Marie Hancock Alfaro, University of Southern California and Jane Junn, University of Southern California
Discussants:
Marisa Abrajano, University of California, San Diego
Christian Grose, University of Southern California
Corrine McConnaughy, George Washington University
Wendy G. Smooth, The Ohio State University
Sophia Jordan Wallace, University of Washington