Thank you for the opportunity to share our thoughts after editing SIPR for two and a half years and as we are about to act on our final set of manuscripts. As we reflected on these years, we found ourselves in a bit of a quandary. We have been editing a journal with a focus on policy implications, yet during our careers, neither of us has particularly focused on policy. Like most researchers, we have developed our research programs with broad applications in mind while rarely making any specific policy recommendations. After editing SIPR for nearly three years, we realized we are not alone. We had the pleasure of soliciting articles from the leaders in the field. These researchers have been professional and enthusiastic, and they seemed to appreciate the opportunity to apply their area of knowledge to policy. Our most common critique of many of the manuscripts was that the policy implications and recommendations of the reviews seemed vague or too broad to be readily adopted. We have learned that applying the field’s knowledge toward concrete policy recommendations is a true skill. It is a skill that we rarely teach in graduate school and seldom require in the field’s typical journals, yet it is a skill that would benefit researchers, the field, and policymakers. The National Science Foundation requires researchers to discuss the “broader implications” of their proposed work, but those sections often seem like somewhat forced and forgotten add-ons. In our Editorial role and as researchers, we have gained a new appreciation for colleagues who skillfully apply broad theories and research toward tangible and concrete policy applications.   

Our third volume (2024, volume 18) is not yet out, but we believe readers will be pleased with the new SIPR issue. Reviewing our first two volumes, we are quite proud of the collected works. We worked to achieve diversity at all levels and to give a voice to a broad range of scholars. We have valued diversity at the intellectual level, demographic diversity on the Editorial Board and among the solicited articles, career stage diversity, and a host of other levels of diversity. Our value for diversity produced a tremendously talented and enthusiastic editorial board and a set of interesting articles across a range of social issues. We also tried to address potentially controversial issues. Thus, Black Lives Matter, COVID, White nationalism, climate change, immigration, marginalized groups, barriers to STEM fields, and other topics have been included in the SIPR issues we have developed. Certainly, SIPR authors have done a great job representing and “giving away” the field.  

We thank the Editorial Board and the authors who have contributed their knowledge to our past and upcoming SIPR volumes. It has been our pleasure to work with these distinguished experts and colleagues.