A Global Ranking of Political Science Departments A Research Proposal and Preliminary Results

Transcription

1 A Global Ranking of Political Science Departments A Research Proposal and Preliminary Results Simon Hix Department of Government London School of Economics and Political Science s.hix@lse.ac.uk website: February 2003

2 1. Aim of the Research The aim of the research is to establish an objective and annually updatable method for ranking political science departments in terms of their research output on a global scale. Global rankings are well-established in the natural sciences, and have started to emerge in the social sciences, especially in the discipline of economics (e.g. Scott and Mitias, 1996; Dusansky and Vernon, 1998). Rankings of departments is becoming one of the key information tools for faculty (when accepting jobs and negotiating salaries), students (when applying, particularly for graduate programmes), and funding agencies (when allocating resources). For example, to investigate whether, to what extent and why European universities are lagging behind their competitors in the United States, the Commission of the European Union commissioned a series of research projects to develop different methods for ranking economics on a global scale (esp. Coupé, 2003). Also, for departments themselves, analysis of relative ranking positions can influence decisions about the allocation of resources, the appropriate training for PhD students and faculty, and which members of departments should be encouraged and rewarded. My aim is to develop something similar for the discipline of political science. If an objective and easily updateable global ranking can be established, we can start to understand why particular institutions do better than others: What type of training do the faculty in the top departments have? How are the top departments organized? Is it simply a matter of money and/or size, etc.? This paper explains how such a ranking could be established and presents the results from a pilot study. Section two reviews the problems with the existing rankings of political science departments. Section three explains, and justifies, the proposed method, which 2

3 involves counting and weighting the number of articles published by each department in the sixty-one political science journals in a five-year period. Section four presents the results of the pilot study (based on the articles in twenty-three journals between 1997 and 2001). Finally, section five contains a short conclusion. 2. Problems with Existing Rankings of Political Science Departments Systematic rankings of political science departments are few and far between. Existing rankings either rely on subjective peer assessments rather than objective measures of research output, or rank departments in specific countries rather than globally, or both. The most widely used and publicly recognised method for ranking political science departments is through peer assessment: where senior political scientists are asked to evaluate the quality of other departments. For example, this method is used by the National Research Council (NRC) and the U.S. News and World Report to rank doctoral programmes in the United States in a large number of disciplines (see PS: Political Science and Politics, 1996a, 1996b). A similar method is used in the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) in the United Kingdom, which enables the British government to rank departments across a large number of disciplines for the distribution of research funds. The problems with this method are well known. First, despite the expressed desire to be objective, there is always an element of subjectivity in peer assessments of departments. Because the recognised senior members of any profession tend to be in the established departments, or have held positions in one or more established departments, there is an inevitable bias in favour of established departments or against new and up and coming departments. Also, the overall reputation of the university has an effect on the respondents 3

4 expected performance of a political science department (Lowry and Silver, 1996; Jackman and Siverson, 1996), and research has shown that large departments tend to be overvalued in these rankings (Katz and Eagles, 1996). As a result, these rankings are always biased and tend to be several years behind: as large departments in famous universities are overvalued, and small departments in new universities are undervalued. One only has to consider the relative positions of the political science departments at the University of California, Berkeley (large and famous) and the University of California, San Diego (small and new) in the U.S. News and World Report rankings to understand this problem. Second, the peer assessment method is highly costly and time-consuming. This is because of the need either to survey a large number of senior faculty (as in the NRC and U.S. News and World Report cases) or to prepare are read all the submissions of all the universities (as in the case of the UK RAE). Hence, rankings based on peer assessments are invariably only updated every five years (in the RAE case) or even longer (in the cases of the NRC and U.S. News and World Report). Third, all existing peer assessment rankings are nationally specific. Also, different methods tend to be used in different rankings. For example, in the U.S. News and World Report, departments are scored out of five in a number of criteria, and then averaged (with the top departments scoring between 4.7 and 4.9). In the UK RAE, departments are scored in bands from 5* to 2 (with the top departments scoring 5*). As a result of these different criteria, relative performance on a global scale is difficult to establish. In a conscious effort to improve on these peer assessment results, political scientists have begun to develop more objective methods of ranking political science departments (e.g. Welch and Hibbing, 1983; Miller, Tein and Peebler, 1996; Ballard and Mitchell, 1998; McCormick and Rice, 2001). Following the practice in other disciplines, the most popular method is to count the number of articles published by each department in top political 4

5 science journals. The assumption behind this method is that in contemporary political science, the main output for research results is publication in a professional journal. Publication of full-length book manuscripts is more common in political science than in economics. However, most authors of books with top university presses would have published several articles as part of the research leading to the book manuscript. Hence, there is probably a high correlation between journal publications and book publications by department. 1 Nevertheless, there are also significant problems with the way this method has been applied thus far. First, existing studies have counted only a small number of journals. Miller, Tein and Peebler (1996) just counted articles in the American Political Science Review. Similarly, Teske (1996) counted articles in the American Political Science Review, Journal of Politics, and American Journal of Political Science (see Garrand and Graddy, 1999). McCormick and Rice (2001) counted articles five journals: American Political Science Review, American Journal of Political Science, Journal of Politics, Western Political Quarterly, and Polity. Ballard and Mitchell (1998) counted articles in nine political science journals: American Political Science Review, Journal of Politics, American Journal of Political Science, World Politics, Comparative Politics, British Journal of Political Science, Western Political Quarterly/Political Research Quarterly, Polity, and Political Science Quarterly (in Ballard and Mitchell s order). Even nine journals is a rather limited and not very representational selection of the main journals in political science. The Institute for Scientific Information lists 141 journals in the fields of political science, international relations, and public administration. With modern 1 Presumably, rankings based on journal articles could be supplemented with rankings based on book publications by the reputation of book publishers (e.g. Goodson, Dillman, and Hira, 1999). However, ranking of departments based on book publications rather than journal publications are few and far between (for a notable exception see Rice, McCormick and Bergmann, 2002). This is partly due to the resources needed to undertake such an exercise (without a central database like the ISI Journal Citation Report). However, any objective ranking of academic presses is difficult to construct (most existing methods use subjective evaluations). Finally, such research may have little added value because there is likely to be a high correlation between rankings based on book publications and journal publications. 5

6 computer technology, there is no reason why all, or a much larger and representative sample, of these journals cannot be counted, as has been done in economics. Second, and partly due to the limited and non-representative sample of journals coded, the existing rankings based on journal publications tend to be US-centric or US-biased. For example, although the American Political Science Review is widely respected as the top political science journal, it is nonetheless the in-house journal of the American Political Science Association, and between 1996 and 1999 only 7 percent of articles in this journal where by scholars in non-us departments (Schmitter, 2002). Similarly, only one of the nine journals used by Ballard and Mitchell (1998) was edited outside the United States: the British Journal of Political Science. As a result, it is not surprising that not a single non-us department appeared in any of these top-fifty rankings of political science departments. Can it really be the case that top departments outside the US, such as Oxford, Essex or the LSE are worse than political science departments in institutions like the University of South Carolina or the University of West Virginia? So, the challenge is to devise a method that will produce an objective, easily updateable, and truly global ranking of political science departments. Peer assessment ranking methods meet none of these goals. Rankings based on journal publications may be objective. But, existing attempts using this method have not tried to produce non-us centric results. I shall now discuss why I think my method improves on these existing attempts. 3. The Method: Articles in the Main Political Science Journals, in 5-Year Periods The method I propose involves counting the number of articles published by each department in all the main political science journals in a given year. First, we have established that the 6

7 number of journal publications by each department is a more objective and more easily updateable measure than peer assessments and probably correlates highly with the number of book publications by each department. Second, by including a large number of journals, from the US, Europe and the rest of the world, a truly global rank should result. Three questions remain, however: (1) What are the main political science journals? (2) How many volumes of these journals should be included? (3) How should the articles in these journals be counted? Regarding the first question, there is no definitive list of journals in political science (unlike in economics, where the EconLit database includes several hundred journals in the field). Nevertheless, the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), which constructs the International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, compiles an extensive list of journals. Entering the fields political science, international relations and public administration in the ISI database in 2001 produces a list of 141 political science journals - see Table 1. The ISI also produces an annual Journal Citation Report. These reports contain four main pieces of information about each journal: Number of Citations: the number of citations to articles published in a journal (in any year) by articles published in all other journals in the ISI database (even outside political science) in the specific year. 7

8 Impact Factor: the number of citations by articles published in all other journals in the ISI database in the specific year to articles published in the journal in the previous two years, divided by the number of articles published in the journal in the previous two years. Immediacy Factor: the number of citations by articles published in all other journals in the ISI database in the specific year to articles published in the journal in the same year, divided by the number of articles published in the journal in that year. Cited Half-Life: the age range of fifty percent of citations to articles published in the journal by articles in all other journals in the ISI database in the specific year - where the cumulative percentage of citations to each previous volume of the journal are counted from the current year until the fifty percent threshold is reached, and the difference between the cumulative percentages for the years immediately either side of fifty percent is divided by two. These indicators can be used in a variety of ways to rank the journals. For example, the journals are sorted in Table 1 by the total number of citations in However, the ISI journal list is not an exhaustive list of all significant political science journals. The ISI database only contains journals that pay an annual subscription to the ISI. This is common practice for US-based journals and for European journals that wish to be listed in the International Bibliography of the Social Sciences and the Social Science Citation Index. However, there are several prominent international political science journals that are not listed in the ISI database. For example, whereas the in-house journals of the British, German and Scandinavian political science associations are contained in the ISI database, the 8

9 in-house journals of the French, Italian and Dutch associations are not. Also, several major sub-field journals are not included in the ISI list, such as West European Politics, Journal of Public Policy, Nations and Nationalism, History of Political Thought, Journal of Legislative Studies, European Union Politics, Aussenwirtschaft and Democratization. Table 2 lists these three national association journals as well as these eight sub-field journals. But, it is unrealistic to treat all 152 of these journals as the main political science journals. For a start, a number of journals in this list are only tangentially related to political science, and are in fact major journals in other fields, such as law, economics, geography, sociology, history, psychology, social policy, communications, philosophy, or management. Also, a large number of journals in the ISI list have a marginal impact on the discipline. For example, forty-six journals had less than 100 citations to articles published in any issue of these journals by the several thousand articles published in all journals in the ISI database in 2001! Hence, we can whittle down the ISI journal list in an objective way by removing the journals that meet one or other of these two simple criteria: 1) Not a political science journal either the journal is not edited by a political scientist or has a majority of non-political scientists on its editorial board (scholars who are not in departments of political science, politics, government, international relations, public administration, or public policy); and 2) Low citation rate the journal had less than 100 citations in either 2000 or 2001 (the ISI does not calculate half-life scores in a given year for journals with less than 100 citations in that year). 9

10 This leaves forty-seven journals. To this list I added the following two categories of journals: the three national association journals that did not meet either criteria 2 or 3, above, but ought to be included as they are the journals read by the majority of the profession in their relevant countries (Australian Journal of Political Science, Politische Vierteljahresschrift, and Scandinavian Political Studies); and the eleven journals listed in Table 2 that are not in the ISI list. The result is a total of sixty-one journals, which can reasonably be regarded as the main political science journals of the global profession see Table 3. Regarding the second question, the issue here is what is a reasonable time-span for the establishment of a rolling ranking? Creating a new ranking every year would have the advantage of ranking departments on an annual basis. However, restricting the coding to only one year of each journal would probably produce an unrepresentative result because of the small size of the sample in each journal. Conversely, a new ranking every ten years would be more accurate, but would not measure more subtle changes in departmental outputs. As a result, counting articles on a rolling five-year basis would probably be the most effective method. This would have the advantage of a long enough period for a large enough sample in each journal, and would also allow a new ranking to be produced every year in other words, , , , and so on. Moreover, both the U.S. News and World Report and the UK Research Assessment Exercise rank departments at five-year intervals. If the same five-year unit of assessment is used, the result of the journal publications based ranking will be directly comparable to the results of these peer assessment based methods. 10

11 Finally, on the issue of how to count each article, I have decided to use four different methods, each measuring a different strength of a department, and then create an overall rank based on the mean position of the institution in these four individual rankings (cf. Coupé, 2003). The four methods are as follows: Rank 1 (Number of Articles) the absolute number of articles by scholars from the institution in question published in all the journals in the five-year period. Here, a co-authored article by two scholars from two different institutions counts as 0.5 for each of these institutions, an article with three authors from three different institutions counts as for each of these institutions, and a single-authored article by someone with two institutional affiliations counts as 0.5 for each institution, and so on). In other words, this simple counting of all articles measures the volume of research output of a political science department. Rank 2 (Number of Articles Weighted by Journal Impact) the number of articles by scholars from the institution in question published in all the journals in a five-year period multiplied by the weight (1 to 4) of the journal where the article was published. Here, the method for counting the institutional affiliation of an article and the inclusion of all journals is the same as in Rank 1. However, this time each article is multiplied by a given weight of the journal. To determine the weight given to each journal I ordered the journals according to the average number of citations to articles in the journal in the 2000 and 2001 years multiplied by the average half-life of the journal in 2000 and The journals were then divided into four groups see Table 3. Articles published in journals in the top group 11

12 (American Political Science Review, and American Journal of Political Science) were then multiplied by four. Articles in journals in the next group (International Organization to European Journal of Political Research) were multiplied by three, and so on. In other words, this weighted ranking measures the quality of research output of a political science department. Rank 3 (Articles in General Journals) the number of articles by scholars from the institution in question published in the nine in-house journals of the national professional political science associations. Here, the method for counting the institutional affiliation of an article is the same as in Rank 1. But, this time, only articles in the national professional journals are included: American Political Science Review (American Political Science Association), Canadian Journal of Political Science (Canadian Political Science Association), Political Studies (UK Political Studies Association), Scandinavian Political Studies (Nordic Political Science Association), Politische Vierteljahresschrift (German Political Science Association), Australian Journal of Political Science (Australian Political Science Association), Acta Politica (Dutch Political Science Association), Revue Francaise de Science Politique (French Political Science Association), and Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica (Italian Political Science Association). These journals cover all the major countries were political science is taught and researched (except perhaps Japan, India and Brazil!). This rank enables the establishment of national rankings within the overall global ranking of departments. Rank 4 (Articles in Main Sub-Field Journals) the number of articles by scholars from the institution in question published in the four main journals of the four main sub- 12

13 fields in political science Comparative Politics (including American Politics), International Relations, Political Theory, and Public Policy/Public Administration. Here, the method for counting the institutional affiliation of an article is the same as in Rank 1. But, only articles in the four top journals in each sub-field are included see Table 3. An overall ranking can then be calculated as the mean position for each department in these four rankings. By combining these four measures, the position of a department in the overall rank is a reflection of the volume of research output by the department, the quality of this research, the national strength of the department, and the sub-field strength of the department. These four qualities could be weighted in another way. However, I would prefer to simply treat them as equal at this stage, and then let other researchers (or the departments themselves!) use the data to develop alternative rankings. 4. Preliminary Results From a Pilot Study: 23 Journals, Having established the method, I proceeded to collect the data. As a pilot study, I employed two research assistants to collect data from the period in as many journals as possible before my research budget ran dry! My diligent assistants managed to collect a full dataset from the twenty-three journals marked with an asterisk in Table 3. Although this is not the full dataset, this pilot study included all the journals in the top and second groups and a large portion of the journals in the third group. Also, this study included many of the main sub-field journals. Furthermore, by including twenty-three journals, this research is the most extensive study of research output in political science journals ever undertaken as discussed, above, the largest existing study included nine journals (Ballard and Mitchell, 1998). 13

14 Table 4 lists the Global Top Fifty political science departments produced by the pilot study (the Appendix contains the results for the top 200). Anyone with a cursory knowledge of the discipline of political science would immediately recognise most of the names in the list. This top fifty includes forty-two departments from the United States, which compares to forty from the United States using a similar method in the discipline of economics (Coupé, 2003). Of the remaining eight institutions, four are from the United Kingdom (compared to five in the comparable ranking in economics), and one each from Australia, Canada, Denmark and Italy. There are no non-us departments in the top ten, three non-us departments between eleven and twenty (Oxford, Toronto, and the European University Institute [EUI], in Florence, Italy), one between twenty-one and thirty (Essex), three between thirty-one and forty (the London School of Economics and Political Science [LSE], the Australian National University [ANU] in Canberra, and Aarhus University in Denmark), and one between fortyone and fifty (Manchester). In the comparable ranking in economics, there were no non-us department in the top ten, one between eleven and twenty (LSE), three between twenty-one and thirty (Toronto, Oxford, and British Columbia in Canada), one between thirty-one and forty (Cambridge), and five between forty-one and fifty (Tel Aviv, University College London, Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Tilburg in the Netherlands, and Warwick in the UK) (ibid.). Table 5 lists the top twenty political science departments in Europe and the Rest of the World (outside the United States and Europe) produced by the pilot study. British institutions dominate the European list, with twelve departments in the top twenty. However, this is similar to the equivalent list in economics, which has ten British departments in the European top twenty (ibid.). Similarly, Canadian departments dominate the Rest of the World list, with twelve departments in the top twenty. Again, this is similar to the equivalent list in 14

15 economics, which has eleven Canadian departments in the Rest of the World top twenty (ibid.). In other words, if one assumes that the global spread of good and bad departments is broadly similar in the disciplines of political science and economics, then the method outlined above and applied in the pilot study is as good as the most similar ranking in economics. Tables 6 and 7 compare the results of the pilot study with the two main peer assessment rankings: the U.S. News and World Report ranking of US political science graduate programmes; and the British government s Research Assessment Exercise ranking of the research output of British departments of politics and international studies. The results of the pilot study are broadly similar to the U.S. News and World Report results (with reasonably high correlations between the rank produced by the pilot study and the scores and rank in the US study). However, the pilot study results for the UK are quite different from the British Research Assessment Exercise results. Given the positive evaluation of the pilot study results in all other respects, this may say more about the subjectiveness of the Research Assessment Exercise than the lack of objectiveness of the journal coding method! 5. Conclusion An objective, easily updateable, and global ranking of departments does not exist in the discipline of political science. Existing rankings are either subjective, costly to update, or specific to particular countries (especially in the United States). This situation can be rectified by borrowing a method used in economics: of counting the number of articles published by departments in the main journals in the field. Using objective measures of the 15

16 quality and importance of academic journals, there are approximately sixty main journals in political science. The pilot study, of the content of twenty-three of these journals in the period, produced a series of global and national rankings of departments. In terms of the regional and national balance of institutions in these rankings, the results of the pilot study compare well with the rankings in economics using the same method, but somewhat less well with the main peer assessment rankings of political science departments in the United States and United Kingdom. It is reasonable to assume, however, that a ranking based on the full content of all sixty-one journals would either produce similar results to these peer assessment rankings or reveal the systematic biases in these subjective methods. Overall, the preliminary results suggest that if this research can be completed, an objective, easily updateable and global ranking of political science departments would result. This would be a major benefit to our discipline. For the first time we would be able to see how top departments outside the United States compare to the best in the United States, and how departments within different regions and countries compare to each other. Moreover, departments would know what they would need to do to improve, in terms of where their faculty and research students should place their research outputs. We would also have a method for producing these outputs which would be considerably more objective and cheaper to update than the existing rankings systems. 16

17 References Ballard, Michael J. and Neil J. Mitchell (1998) The Good, the Better, and the Best in Political Science, PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp Coupé, Tom (2003) Revealed Preferences: Worldwide Rankings of Economists and Economics Departments, , Journal of Economic Literature, forthcoming, Dusansky, Richard and Clayton J. Vernon (1998) Rankings of U.S. Economics Departments, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp Garand, James C. and Kristy L. Graddy (1999) Ranking Political Science Departments: Do Publications Matter?, PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp Goodson, Larry P., Bradford Dillman, and Anil Hira (1999) Ranking the Presses: Political Scientists Evaluations of Publisher Quality, PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp Jackman, Robert W. and Randolph M. Siverson (1996) Rating the Rating: An Analysis of the National Research Council s Appraisal of Political Science Ph.D. Programs, PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp Katz, Richard and Munroe Eagles (1996) Ranking Political Science Departments: A View from the Lower Half, PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp Lowry, Robert C. and Brian D. Silver (1996) A Rising Tide Lifts All Boats: Political Science Department Reputation and Reputation of the University, PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp McCormick, James M. and Tom. W. Rice (2001) Graduate Training and Research Productivity in the 1990s: A Look at Who Publishes, PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. 34, No. 4, pp Miller, Arthur H., Charles Tien, and Andrew A. Peebler (1996) Department Rankings: An Alternative Approach, PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol, 29, No. 4, pp PS: Political Science and Politics (1996a) National Research Council Relative Rankings for Research-Doctorate Programs in Political Science, PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp PS: Political Science and Politics (1996b) U.S. News and World Report Ranking of Graduate Political Science Departments, PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. 29, No. 2, p

18 Rice, Tom. W., James M. McCormick and Benjamin D. Bergmann (2002) Graduate Training, Current Affiliation and Publishing Books in Political Science, PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. 35, No. 54, pp Schmitter, Philippe (2002) Seven (Disputable) Theses Concerning the Future of Transatlanticised or Globalised Political Science, European Political Science, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp Scott, Loren C. and Peter M. Mitias (1996) Trends in Rankings of Economics Departments in the U.S.: An Update, Economic Inquiry, Vol. 34, pp Teske, Paul (1996) Rankings of Political Science Departments Based on Publications in the APSR, JOP, and AJPS, , State University of New York, Stony Brook, manuscript. Welch, Susan and John R. Hibbing (1983) What Do the New Ratings of Political Science Departments Measure?, PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp

19 Table Political Science, International Relations, and Public Administration Journals on the ISI 2001 Journal Citation Report (ranked by Total Citations) Journal Title Total Citations Impact Factor Immediacy Factor Cited Half-life American Political Science Review American Journal of Political Science International Organization Public Opinion Quarterly Journal of Politics World Politics Journal of Conflict Resolution International Security Foreign Affairs Public Choice American Journal of International Law Public Administration Review International Studies Quarterly Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science European Journal of Political Research British Journal of Political Science New Left Review Journal of Democracy Philosophy and Public Affairs Political Geography New Republic Comparative Political Studies Journal of Peace Research Nation Comparative Politics Public Administration Journal of Policy Analysis and Management Journal of Common Market Studies Journal of European Public Policy Political Science Quarterly Legislative Studies Quarterly Political Psychology World Economy Foreign Policy American Politics Quarterly Politics and Society Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv-Review of World Economy Review of International Studies Journal of Social Policy Political Research Quarterly Policy Sciences PS-Political Science and Politics Environment and Planning C-Government and Policy Political Theory Human Rights Quarterly Policy and Politics Electoral Studies Public Interest Political Behavior Journal of Theoretical Politics Political Studies Marine Policy International Affairs Common Market Law Review Policy Studies Journal Review of International Political Economy Political Communication Journal of World Trade International Interactions Scottish Journal of Political Economy Publius-The Journal of Federalism Journal of the Japanese and International Economies Post-Soviet Affairs Millennium-Journal of International Studies Governance Security Studies European Journal of International Relations Administration and Society Monthly Review Cornell International Law Journal

20 Contemporary Economic Policy Canadian Journal of Political Science Latin American Perpsectives Public Personnel Management Party Politics Columbia Journal of Transnational Law Public Money and Management Commentary Administration in Social Work Parliamentary Affairs International Political Science Review Europe-Asia Studies (ex Soviet Studies) Washington Quarterly Public Administration and Development Political Quarterly Polity Local Government Studies Canadian Public Policy Studies in Comparative International Development East European Politics and Societies Current History Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Australian Journal of Public Administration Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs Dissent Social Security Bulletin Osteuropa Women and Politics Alternatives International Journal Scandinavian Political Studies Ocean Development and International Law Government and Opposition Issues and Studies American Review of Public Administration Australian Journal of Political Science International Review of Administrative Sciences Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce Communist and Post-Communist Studies Journal of Political Philosophy Canadian Public Administration Journal of Political and Military Sociology Politische Vierteljahresschrift Journal of Developing Areas Security Dialogue World Policy Journal Global Governance Stanford Journal of International Law Journal of Strategic Studies Conflict Management and Peace Science Politicka Ekonomie Internationale Politik Studies in American Political Development Problems of Post-Communism Alternatives-Social Transformation and Humane Governance Harvard International Journal of Press-Politics Africa Today Middle East Policy Policy Review World Today Space Policy Australian Journal of International Affairs Pensee Political Science Chinese Law and Government Russian and East European Finance and Trade Korean Journal of Defence Analysis Internasjonal Politikk Russian Politics and Law American Politics Research Latin American Politics and Society Note: See the text for a description of the meaning of Total citations, Impact factor, Immediacy factor, and Cited half-life. 20

21 Table 2. Prominent Political Science Journals Not Listed in the ISI Journal Citations Reports Journal Title Acta Politica Aussenwirtschaft Democratization European Union Politics History of Political Thought Journal of Legislative Studies Journal of Public Policy Nations and Nationalism Revue Francaise de Science Politique Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica West European Politics Where Edited Netherlands Switzerland UK Germany/UK/US UK UK UK UK France Italy UK 21

22 Table 3. The Sixty-One Main Political Science Journals Journal No. of Citations * Half-Life ( ) Weighting National/Top Sub-Field Journals Coded in Pilot Study American Political Science Review National * American Journal of Political Science * International Organization International Relations * Journal of Politics * Journal of Conflict Resolution International Relations * World Politics Comparative Politics * International Security International Relations * Philosophy and Public Affairs Political Theory * British Journal of Political Science * 1 Foreign Affairs International Relations * European Journal of Political Research * 1 International Studies Quarterly * Comparative Politics Comparative Politics * Political Science Quarterly * Journal of Democracy Comparative Politics * Public Administration Public Policy/Administration * Comparative Political Studies Comparative Politics * Legislative Studies Quarterly American Politics Quarterly Journal of Peace Research * Political Theory Political Theory * Politics and Society * Journal of Common Market Studies * Political Behavior Journal of Theoretical Politics Political Theory * Canadian Journal of Political Science National * Publius-The Journal of Federalism Polity Political Research Quarterly Journal of European Public Policy Public Policy/Administration International Interactions PS-Political Science and Politics Electoral Studies Political Studies National Millennium-Journal of International Studies Political Communication International Political Science Review International Affairs Review of International Studies East European Politics and Societies Governance Public Policy/Administration Security Studies Political Quarterly Europe-Asia Studies (ex Soviet Studies) Party Politics Post-Soviet Affairs European Journal of International Relations Scandinavian Political Studies National Politische Vierteljahresschrift National Australian Journal of Political Science National Acta Politica not in ISI list 1 National Aussenwirtschaft not in ISI list 1 Democratization not in ISI list 1 European Union Politics not in ISI list 1 History of Political Thought not in ISI list 1 Political Theory Journal of Legislative Studies not in ISI list 1 Journal of Public Policy not in ISI list 1 Public Policy/Administration Nations and Nationalism not in ISI list 1 Revue Francaise de Science Politique not in ISI list 1 National Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica not in ISI list 1 National West European Politics not in ISI list 1 Note: In the preliminary study, BJPS and EJPR were used as proxies for the European national journals that have not yet been coded. 22

23 Table 4. The Global Top Fifty Political Science Departments Rank University Country No. of Articles Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3 Rank 4 (97-01) 1 Harvard University, MA USA Stanford University, CA USA Columbia University, NY USA Yale University, CT USA University of California, Los Angeles USA Princeton University, NJ USA University of California, Berkeley USA University of California, San Diego USA Ohio State University USA University of Chicago, IL USA University of Oxford UK University of Michigan USA University of Toronto Canada George Washington University, DC USA University of California, Irvine USA Texas A&M University USA Michigan State University USA European University Institute Italy Northwestern University, IL USA Massachusetts Institute of Technology USA Indiana University, Bloomington USA Duke University, NC USA University of Minnesota USA University of Wisconsin, Madison USA University of Essex UK Vanderbilt University, TN USA University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign USA American University, DC USA University of Virginia USA Florida State University USA Cornell University, NY USA Washington University, St. Louis, MO USA Johns Hopkins University, MD USA Rutgers University, NJ USA London School of Economics and Political Science UK Australian National University Australia Georgetown University, DC USA University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill USA Pennsylvania State University USA Aarhus University Denmark University of South Carolina USA University of Manchester UK University of Arizona, Tuscon USA University of Maryland USA University of California, Santa Barbara USA New York University USA University of Rochester, NY USA University of New Mexico USA The Brookings Institution, DC USA University of Iowa USA Notes: * = Number of articles is rounded up to the nearest whole number. Rank = Overall position, based on mean position of other four Ranks Rank 1 = Total number of articles in the 23 journals in the pilot study between 1997 and 2001 Rank 2 = Total number of articles weighted by the rank of the journal (4, 3, 2 or 1 see Table 3) Rank 3 = Total number of articles in the national journals (APSR, BJPS, EJPR, CJPS) Rank 4 = Total number of articles in the main sub-field journals 23

24 Table 5. Top Twenty Departments in Europe and the Rest of the World Rank University Country No. of Art s (97-01) Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3 Rank 4 Global Rank Europe 1 University of Oxford UK European University Institute Italy University of Essex UK London School of Economics and Political Science UK Aarhus University Denmark University of Manchester UK University of Birmingham UK University of Amsterdam Netherlands University of Geneva Switzerland University of Sheffield UK University of Strathclyde UK University of Oslo Norway Trinity College, Dublin Ireland University of Leeds UK University of Mannheim Germany University of Bristol UK De Montfort University UK Leiden University Netherlands Uppsala University Sweden University of Aberdeen UK Rest of the World (i.e. not Europe or USA) 1 University of Toronto Canada Australian National University Australia Tel Aviv University Israel Carleton University Canada McMaster University Canada McGill University, Montreal Canada University of British Columbia Canada Simon Fraser University, BC Canada Queen's University Canada Hebrew University of Jerusalem Israel Dalhousie University Canada University of Tokyo Japan University of Haifa Israel Universite de Montreal Canada University of Alberta Canada University of Hong Kong China Chuo University Japan University of Lethbridge Canada Bilkent University Turkey Universite Laval Canada Notes: * = Number of articles is rounded up to the nearest whole number Rank 1 = Total number of articles in the 23 journals in the pilot study between 1997 and 2001 Rank 2 = Total number of articles weighted by the rank of the journal (4, 3, 2 or 1 see Table 3) Rank 3 = Total number of articles in the national journals (APSR, BJPS, EJPR, CJPS) Rank 4 = Total number of articles in the main sub-field journals Global Rank = Overall position in global ranking, based on mean position of other four Ranks 24

25 Table 6. US Top Twenty Compared to U.S. News and World Report Results Rank University US News & World Report Score US News & World Report Rank 1 Harvard University, MA Stanford University, CA 4.7 2= 3 Columbia University, NY = 4 Yale University, CT University of California, Los Angeles 4.2 8= 6 Princeton University, NJ University of California, Berkeley 4.7 2= 8 University of California, San Diego Ohio State University = 10 University of Chicago, IL 4.2 8= 11 University of Michigan 4.7 2= 12 George Washington University, DC = 13 University of California, Irvine = 14 Texas A&M University = 15 Michigan State University = 16 Northwestern University, IL = 17 Massachusetts Institute of Technology = 18 Indiana University, Bloomington = 19 Duke University, NC 4.2 8= 20 University of Minnesota = Correlation: Table 7. British Top Twenty Compared to UK Research Assessment Exercise Results Rank University RAE Score RAE Rank 1 University of Oxford 5* 5 2 University of Essex 5* 3 3 London School of Economics and Political Science University of Manchester University of Birmingham University of Sheffield 5* 4 7 University of Strathclyde University of Leeds University of Bristol De Montfort University University of Aberdeen University of Cambridge University of Sussex University of Wales, Aberystwyth 5* 2 15 University of Exeter University of Reading University of Dundee University of Warwick University of York University of Bradford 5 19 Correlation:

26 Appendix: The Top 200 Political Science Departments Rank University Country Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3 Rank 4 1 Harvard University, MA USA Stanford University, CA USA Columbia University, NY USA Yale University, CT USA University of California, Los Angeles USA Princeton University, NJ USA University of California, Berkeley USA University of California, San Diego USA Ohio State University USA University of Chicago, IL USA University of Oxford UK University of Michigan USA University of Toronto Canada George Washington University, DC USA University of California, Irvine USA Texas A&M University USA Michigan State University USA European University Institute Italy Northwestern University, IL USA Massachusetts Institute of Technology USA Indiana University, Bloomington USA Duke University, NC USA University of Minnesota USA University of Wisconsin, Madison USA University of Essex UK Vanderbilt University, TN USA University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign USA American University, DC USA University of Virginia USA Florida State University USA Cornell University, NY USA Washington University, St. Louis, MO USA Johns Hopkins University, MD USA Rutgers University, NJ USA London School of Economics and Political Science UK Australian National University Australia Georgetown University, DC USA University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill USA Pennsylvania State University USA Aarhus University Denmark University of South Carolina USA University of Manchester UK University of Arizona, Tuscon USA University of Maryland USA University of California, Santa Barbara USA New York University USA University of Rochester, NY USA University of New Mexico USA The Brookings Institution, DC USA University of Iowa USA University of Texas, Austin USA University of California, Davis USA University of North Texas USA Tel Aviv University Israel University of Houston, TX USA University of Pennsylvania USA University of Birmingham UK Rice University, TX USA University of Amsterdam Netherlands University of Geneva Switzerland University of Sheffield UK State University of New York, Binghamton USA University of Strathclyde UK Carleton University Canada City University of New York USA University of Oslo Norway Emory University, GA USA Claremont Graduate University, CA USA University of Missouri, Columbia USA University of Kansas USA University of Washington USA Boston University, MA USA