In order to make our views as clear as possible, we would like to reiterate some central points contained in our letter of November 24, 2015. They include:
*We welcome responses to and comments on this letter, and encourage continued conversations about how best to achieve the goals of research transparency and interpretability in ways that are responsive to the entire APSA membership. . . . We hope that decisions about policies such as DA-RT will be based on deliberation, mutual trust, and shared accommodation.
* We have appointed a publications policy committee comprised of current APSA Council members who will work with the extant membership-based Publications Committee to address a growing need for Council policy on publications. This policy could range from an explicit statement that each editor or editorial team of association-sponsored journals has complete autonomy, to a set of broad policies that association-sponsored journals should follow in order to accord with the APSA Guide to Professional Ethics. The committee will propose a policy to be discussed by the Council in its April 2016 meeting, followed by publication of the proposal and solicitation of members’ views and suggestions. The Council will vote on the (revised) policy in its September 2016 meeting.
* The current president-elect will propose, subject to Council approval, a presidential Task Force on Professional Ethics that will continue and develop ongoing work by current APSA membership-based committees.
*Under long-standing association practice, editors of our journals have wide discretion in editorial standards and procedures. After extensive consultation, the APSR editors have issued a set of draft guidelines for promoting access to evidence and research interpretability. We have therefore not expressed our own views on how these guidelines should be developed and put into practice.
* In our view, all scholars and scholarship benefit from shared engagement around a set of evidence and its possible analyses or interpretations.
We look forward to continued discussion and decision-making about these fascinating and important concerns, and once again, we thank the many political scientists who are involved in thinking through how best to engage in research, teaching, and public engagement.
best to all, Jennifer Hochschild, David Lake, and Rodney Hero