Submitting articles to any journal can be daunting. To help clarify the process and decision-making at Environmental Politics, our Editor-in-Chief David Konisky answers some questions.
1. What are the top things someone submitting a manuscript to Environmental Politics should consider?
We are looking for manuscripts that both fit the topical scope of the journal and make contributions to important theoretical and empirical debates in the environmental politics literature. We are only able to publish about 1 in 10 submitted manuscripts, which means we have to be very selective in the articles we consider. As editors, the first thing we look at is the abstract – it is essential that the abstract be well-written, clearly articulate key arguments and findings, and highlight the contribution of the article. The second thing we do is consider the literature cited in the manuscript. The reference list provides us information about the types of questions and ideas the manuscript is engaging with, as well as people who may be potential reviewers. We are interested in contributions that are not just theoretically and empirically rigorous, but that are engaging with salient questions and puzzles in the environmental politics field.
2. How does the review process work?
As Editor-in-Chief, I first review every submission to the journal (in 2025, we received over 800 submissions). My initial read is to be sure that the manuscript fits the scope of the journal, meets basic rigor standards, and adheres to our formatting guidelines. I then assign the manuscript to one of our six editors for further handling, including shepherding it through the peer review process if they decide to send it out for review. All submission types (i.e., Research Article, Review Articles, Discussions, Brief Report) except book reviews are subject to peer review. Book Reviews are handled internally by dedicated members of our editorial team.
3. What are the most common reasons for you to reject a manuscript?
The most common reason that we reject a manuscript is that it does not sufficiently advance the environmental politics literature. We recognize that this is a judgment call, which is why we lean heavily on our reviewers and members of our Editorial Advisory Board. Manuscripts submitted to the journal must make an original contribution to how we understand environmental politics, broadly defined. It is important to emphasize that we are interested in manuscripts about politics. We often decline to publish excellent work (e.g., studies of environmental policy, analyses of environmental degradation) because it is not about politics.
We also receive many manuscripts that consist of single case studies. While we welcome case studies, it is essential that they have relevance for other geographies and political contexts. We do not insist that all case studies produce generalizable results, but they do need to contribute to broad theoretical debates in environmental politics.
4. Anything else you’d like to add?
The research we publish at Environmental Politics is diverse theoretically, methodologically, and geographically. I often describe the journal as eclectic, with the common thread being our emphasis on politics. Our readership is multi-disciplinary and global. Manuscripts that fit best the journal are those that make interesting arguments, are theoretically and empirically rigorous (whether qualitative or quantitative), and are accessible to our broad readership. Over the past decade, we have aimed to broaden the scope of the journal to parts of the world that have been historically underrepresented in the field, and I think we are making some progress in this direction.
We want Environmental Politics to be home to the best work in the field. The editorial team works hard to treat authors fairly, to welcome diverse perspectives and methodologies, and to provide an efficient and transparent review process. In the end, the journal reflects the field. As scholarship on environmental politics continues to expand and get better, so too will the journal!
