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

References

• AusPSA. 2017b. “Australian Political Studies Association Survey 2017: Results Tables.” https://www.auspsa.org.au/sites/default/files/australian_political_studies_association_survey_report_2017.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• AusPSA Executive Committee Working Party. 2016a. “APSA 2016 Journal Ranking Exercise: Report on Methodology.” https://www.auspsa.org.au/sites/default/files/journal_ranking_methodology_2016.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• AusPSA Executive Committee Working Party. 2016b. “Journal Ranking Submission Criteria.” https://www.auspsa.org.au/sites/default/files/journal_ranking_heads_letter2016_2.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Bennett, Andrew, Aharon Barth, and Kenneth R. Rutherford. 2003. “Do we Preach What we Practice? A Survey of Methods in Political Science Journals and Curricula.” PS: Political Science & Politics 36 (3): 373–378.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christenson, James A., and Lee Sigelman. 1985. “Accrediting Knowledge: Journal Stature and Citation Impact in Social Science.” Social Science Quarterly 66 (4): 964–975.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crewe, Ivor, and Pippa Norris. 1991. “British and American Journal Evaluation: Divergence or Convergence?” PS: Political Science and Politics 24: 524–531.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cullars, John. 1998. “Citation Characteristics of English-language Monographs in Philosophy.” Library and Information Science Research 20: 41–68. doi: 10.1016/S0740-8188(98)90005-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DORA. 2012. “San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment.” https://sfdora.org/read/.
   Google Scholar
• Else, Holly. 2018. “Funding Councils Sign Up to ‘Responsible’ Research Assessment.” Times Higher Education, February 7.
   Google Scholar
• Ferrara, Antonio, and Andrea Bonaccorsi. 2016. “How Robust is Journal Rating in Humanities and Social Sciences? Evidence from a Large-scale, Multi-method Exercise.” Research Evaluation 25 (3): 279–291. doi: 10.1093/reseval/rvv048
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garand, James. 1990. “An Alternative Interpretation of Recent Political Science Journal Evaluations.” PS: Political Science and Politics 23 (3): 448–451.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garand, James. 2005. “Integration and Fragmentation in Political Science: Exploring Patterns of Scholarly Communication in a Divided Discipline.” The Journal of Politics 67 (4): 979–1005. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2508.2005.00347.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garand, James, and Micheal Giles. 2003. “Journals in the Discipline: A Report on a New Study of American Political Scientists.” PS: Political Science and Politics 36 (2): 375–383.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garand, James, Micheal Giles, André Blais, and Iain McLean. 2009. “Political Science Journals in Comparative Perspective: Evaluating Scholarly Journals in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom.” PS: Political Science and Politics 42 (4): 695–717.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giles, Michael, and James Garand. 2007. “Ranking Political Science Journals: Reputational and Citational Approaches.” PS: Political Science and Politics 40 (4): 741–751.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giles, Micheal, Francie Mizell, and David Patterson. 1989. “Political Scientists’ Journal Evaluations Revisited.” PS: Political Science and Politics 22 (3): 613–617.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giles, Michael, and Gerald Wright Jr. 1975. “Political Scientists’ Evaluations of Sixty-three Journals.” PS: Political Science and Politics 8 (3): 254–256. doi: 10.2307/418279
   Google Scholar
• Hicks, Diana. 2004. “The Four Literatures of Social Science.” In Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research: The use of Publication and Patent Statistics in Studies of S&T Systems, edited by Henk F. Moed, Wolfgang Glänzel, and Ulrich Schmoch, 473–496. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Hicks, Diana, Paul Wouters, Ludo Waltman, Sarah de Rijcke, and Ismael Rafols. 2015. “The Leiden Manifesto for Research Metrics.” Nature 520, 23 April: 429–431. doi: 10.1038/520429a
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jump, Paul. 2015. “Metrics: How to Handle Them Responsibly.” Times Higher Education. July 9.
   Google Scholar
• Kettler, David. 2005. “Political Science and Political Theory: The Heart of the Matter.” In Making Political Science Matter: Debating Knowledge, Research, and Method, edited by Sanford F. Schram, and Brian Caterino, 232–251. New York and London: New York University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Moed, Henk F. 2005. Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Moore, Matthew. 2010. “Political Theory Today: Results of a National Survey.” PS: Political Science and Politics 43 (2): 265–272.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Price, Derek de Solla. 1970. “Citation Measures of Hard Science, Soft Science, Technology and Nonscience.” In Communication Among Scientists and Engineers, edited by Carnot Nelson, and Donald Pollock, 3–22. Lexington: Heath Lexington Books.
   Google Scholar
• Rhodes, Roderick Arthur William. 2009. The Australian Study of Politics. Hampshire and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Sawer, Marion, and Jennifer Curtin. 2016. “Organising for a More Diverse Political Science: Australia and New Zealand.” European Political Science 15 (4): 441–456. doi: 10.1057/s41304-016-0070-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharman, Jason. 2008. “Benchmarking Australian IR: Low Impact, A Bookish Lot, or A Very British Affair?” Australian Journal of International Affairs 62 (4): 529–540. doi: 10.1080/10357710802480709
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharman, Jason, and Patrick Weller. 2009. “Where’s the Quality? Political Science Scholarship in Australia.” Australian Journal of Political Science 44 (4): 597–612. doi: 10.1080/10361140903296537
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sievert, Donald, and Mary Ellen Sievert. 1989. “Philosophical Research: Report from the Field.” In Humanists at Work: Papers Presented at a Symposium Held at the University of Illinois, Chicago, 27–28 April 1989, 79–94. Chicago: Office of Publications Services, University of Illinois, Chicago.
   Google Scholar
• Tahai, Alireza, and John Rigsby. 1998. “Information Processing using Citations to Investigate Journal Influence in Accounting.” Information Processing and Management 34 (2–3): 341–359. doi: 10.1016/S0306-4573(97)00082-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson, Jennifer. 2002. “The Death of the Scholarly Monograph in the Humanities? Citation Patterns in Literary Scholarship.” Libri 52 (3): 121–136. doi: 10.1515/LIBR.2002.121
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vromen, Ariadne. 2016. “What’s in a Ranking? Considering the Implications of the 2016 draft APSA Journal Rankings.” Pop Politics Aus Blog. https://poppoliticsaus.wordpress.com/2016/09/12/whats-in-a-ranking-considering-the-implications-of-the-2016-draft-apsa-journal-rankings/.
   Google Scholar
• Vromen, Ariadne. 2018. “Qualitative Methods.” In Theory and Methods in Political Science, 4th ed., edited by Vivien Lowndes, David Marsh, and Gerry Stoker, 237–253. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Weller, Patrick. 2009. “Universities and the Study of Politics.” In The Australian Study of Politics, edited by Roderick Arthur William Rhodes, 19–32. Hampshire and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Weller, Patrick, and Paula Cowan. 2012. “Political Science in Australia 2011: Grants and Staffing.” Australian Journal of Political Science 47 (2): 295–309. doi: 10.1080/10361146.2012.677008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilsdon, James, Liz Allen, Eleonora Belfiore, Philip Campbell, Stephen Curry, Steven Hill, Richard Jones, et al. 2015. The Metric Tide: Report of the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management. doi:10.13140/RG.2.1.4929.1363.
   Google Scholar