878 The American Political Science Review Vol. 76 Clarkson, K. W., Kadlec, C. W., and Laffer, A. B. Election 1 Election 2 1979. Regulating Chrysler out of business? Regula- tion 3:44-49. Dem. Rep. Dem. Rep. De Alessi, L. 1979. An economic appraisal of mobile Exiting voters 8 12 home regulation. Unpublished. Established voters 40 60 40 60 . Neumann, G. R., and Nelson, J. P. in press. Safety New voters 68 12 regulation and firm size: effects of the Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969. Journal of Law and Total 48 72 108 72 Economics. Peltzman, S. 1975. The effects of automobile safety Percent (40) (60) (60) (40) regulation. Journal of Political Economy 83: 677-725. But the same result could obtain by conversion: Williamson, O. E. 1968. Wage rates as a barrier to entry: the Pennington case in perspective. Quarterly Journal of Economics 82:85-116. Election 1 Election 2 Zeckhauser, R. J. 1979. Using the wrong tool: the Dem. Rep. Dem. Rep. pursuit of redistribution through regulation. Un- https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms published. Exiting voters 8 12 Established voters 40 60 60 40 New voters 48 32 Total 48 72 108 72 Percent (40) (60) (60) (40) Erratum in John Boyle and David Jacobs, ERRATA "The Intracity Distribution of Services: A Multi- variate Analysis" (June 1982, pp. 371-379). ON ARTICLES A beta weight is missing in row 4, column 8 of Table 2. The value of the missing coefficient is We apologize for the two errors that appeared .645, significant at the .001 level. in Robert S. Erikson's and Kent L. Tedin's arti- cle, "The 1928-1936 Partisan Realignment: The ON BOOK REVIEWS , subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at Case for the Conversion Hypothesis" (December 1981). On p. 952, the first line of each table In the review of Media Power Politics by David should read: "Exiting voters" and the numbers L. Paletz and Robert M. Entman (vol. 76, no. 1, under "Election 2" in the second table should p. 148) the correct quotation from the book is read: "Dem., 60; Rep., 40." The corrected tables "the unsavory ambiance that now envelops poli- are reprinted below. ticians." 04 Oct 2021 at 20:01:47 , on 170.106.203.74 EDITORIAL NOTES This issue marks the introduction of a new criteria. In one model, prevalent in some . IP address: editorial board. The past year has provided sociology and economics journals, the editorial valuable experience and the time necessary to board consists of working associate editors who assess potential board members through the are scholars with recognized standing in their review process; it has enabled me to come to a bet- various subfields. Each associate editor is totally ter understanding of the meaning and significance responsible for assigning manuscripts to referees of an editorial board for the American Political and making publication decisions within that sub- Science Review. field, under the general supervision of the manag- Through conversations with other editors and ing editor. through an examination of other journals in the At the other extreme is the model in which the https://www.cambridge.org/core field, I have identified four different editorial editorial board is basically honorific, the model board models for selecting board members. Im- typically employed by new journals. The purpose plicit in each model are somewhat different of this type of editorial board is to give legitimacy https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055400189713 Downloaded from 1982 Editorial Notes 879 to the new journal, to provide the journal with added encouragement for a basically thankless recognition and visibility through a "who's who" task as well as to help an individual build a pro- of scholars in the particular field. motion file, I have begun to send notes of special A third model, which has considerably wider thanks in response to truly exceptional reports. acceptance in political science, is one that might I have therefore concluded that the fourth . be termed the "they read more manuscripts there- editorial board model is the most useful for my fore they deserve to be recognized" model. The purposes in that this model brings together a small underlying assumption is that a journal needs a group of people who represent different areas of core of reliable professionals who can always be the discipline and from whom I can get general counted on to evaluate manuscripts. These in- ideas, advice on policy problems, and specific dividuals read more manuscripts than other help with problem manuscripts. The individuals referees and respond more thoroughly and whom I have selected for this advisory function promptly. Some editors will send every manu- appear collectively to meet these requirements. script to at least one board member; others expect Some are long-time professional friends whose board members to be readily available for special judgment I have learned to respect over the years; problems. others I have "met" only recently through their https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms In the fourth model, the editorial board serves exceptional work as referees. As a group they as an advisory committee to the managing editor; reflect the broad substantive spectrums of the it meets regularly to consider policy questions and field as well as its geographical, institutional, and to provide specific advice where problems exist status dimensions; in addition I have tried to ap- with articles or a particular area of specialization. point members who have not served previously on This fourth model combines features of the other the editorial board. I look forward to working three but differs in that the emphasis is on the ad- with the following new editorial board members: vice and information that members can offer. After some consideration I have decided to adopt John H. Aldrich, University of Minnesota this model in selecting the current editorial board. Formal or positive theory, methodology, Although the first model may well be the trend American government and politics. of the future, given the significant degree of G. R. Boynton, University of Iowa specialization within political science, it is clearly Methodology, American government and a model that can only be adopted after careful politics, comparative politics (general). consideration by the APSA Council. The decision to decentralize the editorial office cannot be made David Cameron, Yale University , subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at by a single editor. The second model seems equal- Comparative politics, political economy, ly inappropriate for the Review; The American electoral behavior. Political Science Review is hardly a fledgling jour- nal requiring legitimation. John A. Ferejohn, California Institute of The third model has obvious merit; there is no Technology question that an editor wants and needs a core of Legislative politics, electoral behavior and 04 Oct 2021 at 20:01:47 trusted stalwarts willing to do double duty, and public opinion, public policy. , on there is also no question that such efforts should John R. Freeman, Massachusetts Institute of be rewarded. This model received careful atten- Technology tion but was rejected because (1) the potential Comparative and international politics, core of good referees is large, (2) the computeri- formal theory, methodology. zation of the journal has made it posible to ex- 170.106.203.74 pand greatly the pool of referees, and (3) it is im- Sheldon Goldman, University of Massachusetts portant that the referee process reflect as widely as Public law and judicial politics. possible the broad spectrum of research interests Russell Hanson, Indiana University . IP address: of APSA members. Thus an editorial board of American government and politics, political "core" referees is no longer feasible. Recognition thought and philosophy, formal or positive for services to the journal by referees must take theory. another form. Consequently, beginning with this Ruth S. Jones, Arizona State University issue, each December issue will list all referees American political institutions, public who have contributed during the course of the policy (campaign finance), and electoral year. Further, every referee who has provided behaviors and public opinion. more than four reports in a given year will receive an acknowledgment which thanks that person and James Kuklinski, Indiana University American government and politics, legislative https://www.cambridge.org/core lists the manuscripts that were reviewed so that the information may become part of the referee's politics, electoral behavior and public tenure and promotion files. Finally, to provide opinion. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055400189713 Downloaded from 880 The American Political Science Review Vol. 76 Mary Nichols, Catholic University of America Caporaso, George W. Carey, Ira Carmen, Ed- Political thought and philosophy, American ward Carmines, Berenice Carroll, Byrum E. government and politics. Carter, Jonathan D. Casper, John Chamberlin, John R. Champlin, Steve Chan, Terry Christen- Jerrold G. Rusk, University of Arizona sen, James B. Christoph, Claudio Cioffi-Revilla, . Electoral behavior and public opinion, James M. Clark, James W. Clarke, Aage R. legislative politics, methodology. Clausen, Charles F. Cnudde, Roger W. Cobb, Barbara Salert, Washington University Bernard C. Cohen, Michael P. Cohen, Youssef Methodology, comparative politics (general). Cohen, David Collier, William Connolly, Pamela J. Conover, Philip E. Converse, Margaret M. DINA ZINNES Conway, Beverly B. Cook, Kenneth Cook, Clyde Managing Editor Coombs, Joseph Cooper, Elmer E. Cornwell, Jr., Frank Costin, Richard W. Cottam, Albert D. We are grateful to the following scholars who Cover, Andrew T. Cowart, John Patrick Crecine, have served the Review as anonymous referees Matthew Crenson, William Crotty, Jose B. Cruz, Richard Cyert. https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms during the period from July 1, 1981 through June 30, 1982. Richard K. Dagger, Robert A. Dahl, Fred R. Joel Aberbach, Henry J. Abraham, Christo- Dallmayr, David J.