The international relations literature regularly embraces sovereignty as the primary constitutive rule of international organization. Theoretical traditions that agree on little else all seem to concur that the defining feature of the modern international system is the division of the world into sovereign states. Despite differences over the role of the state in international affairs, most scholars would accept John Ruggie's definition of sovereignty as “the institutionalization of public authority within mutually exclusive jurisdictional domains.” Regardless of the theoretical approach however, the concept tends to be viewed as a static, fixed concept: a set of ideas that underlies international relations but is not changed along with them. Moreover, the essence of sovereignty is rarely defined; while legitimate authority and territoriality are the key concepts in understanding sovereignty, international relations scholars rarely examine how definitions of populations and territories change through-out history and how this change alters the notion of legitimate authority.
This article argues that the discipline of economics consists of two subdisciplines: heterodox and mainstream economics. Being distinct bodies of knowledge, it is possible that the processes of building scientific knowledge are different enough so to generate distinctly different referencing and citation practices. Therefore, a specific impact contribution score is necessary for ranking heterodox journals in terms of their contribution to building heterodox economics. If properly developed such a metric could also be used to produce a single overall quality-equality ranking of mainstream and heterodox journals. Utilizing citation data and peer evaluations of 62 heterodox economics journals, a research quality measure is developed and then used to rank the journals. The measure is then used in conjunction with the SSCI five-year impact factor to produce a comparative research quality-equality rankings of the 62 heterodox and the 192 mainstream journals in the SSCI.
Heterodox economics is in part defined by exclusion from orthodox circles and there is an understandable tendency for heterodox economists to engage primarily with each other outside these circles. Yet the critique offered by heterodoxy speaks more widely. This study examines the diffusion of heterodox economic ideas beyond the immediate confines via an analysis of the citation of heterodox economic journals by other journals. The diffusion of heterodox economics across wider disciplines is traced utilizing data from Emerald, Wiley, and Sage bibliographic databases. Employing the techniques of social network analysis, key journals in the diffusion process are identified, with implications for heterodox economics publishing strategy and engagement in valuation processes.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.