No proxy for quality: why journal rankings in political science are problematic for political theory research

6Citations
Citations of this article
8Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Journal rankings for political science have been regularly published, from the 1970s onwards, by the American Political Science Association’s ‘state of the discipline’ journal. Politics journals have also been officially ranked by the Australian Political Studies Association into four bands (A*, A, B and C) from 2007 onwards. This article shows, first, that the assumption grounding these exercises (namely, that disciplinary journal rankings can serve as proxies for the quality of articles in their pages) is undermined by the findings of the broader research evaluation literature, especially with respect to sub-disciplines (like political theory, Australian politics, and some types of qualitative comparative politics) that bear certain characteristics. Next, outlining the findings of a 2018 survey, it is argued that the disciplinary use of journal rankings in political studies not only has damaging effects on research in political theory, but also advantages other sub-disciplines. The paper closes with two recommendations.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Bankovsky, M. (2019). No proxy for quality: why journal rankings in political science are problematic for political theory research. Australian Journal of Political Science, 54(3), 301–317. https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2019.1609412

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free