Three decades of the International Political Science Review (IPSR): A map of the methodological preferences in IPSR articles

Abstract

Where does the International Political Science Review (IPSR) stand in relation to the hierarchies of knowledge in the discipline? IPSR is the journal of the International Political Science Association and a well-established journal in the discipline of Political Science. The journal has been published since 1980 and in 2016 ranked 54 out of 163 journals in the field. Mapping IPSR’s profile can help us understand the changing thematic, epistemological and methodological preferences within the world of political science. This report maps the distribution of methodological techniques across 152 issues of IPSR, by analysing the abstracts of every article published between 1980 and 2015. In doing so, it aims to provide a clearer picture of the methodological approaches used by political scientists and endorsed by the political science community as acceptable scientific modes of knowledge making.

Student publishing in peer reviewed journals: Evidence from the International Political Science Review

“…With articles submitted from authors in 64 countries, and articles accepted from authors in 23 countries, in 2020, IPSR can stand over its claim to be a truly international journal, albeit with the caveat that the Global North is substantially over-represented among accepted authors, as is the case with many international journals. This pattern is long established as Lima et al (2018) demonstrated that North America and Western Europe accounted for three quarters of all articles since the foundation of the journal. Figure 1 highlights the top submitting countries for 2020 and Fig.…”

“…The journal's pluralistic mission is evident in its commitment to publishing qualitative, quantitative and mixed‐method research, as well as small‐N and large‐N studies. Lima et al (2018) reported that IPSR is representative of publishing in the discipline of political science both in its approaches to the study of politics and its methodological diversity. The journal does not take a specific position on student publishing, it welcomes submission from all author types, on all political science topics and from all parts of the world.…”

“…To answer these questions for the discipline of political science we used two full years of data on submissions and acceptance decisions from the International Political Science Review (IPSR), the flagship journal of the International Political Science Association (IPSA). Now in its 43rd year, IPSR was launched in 1980 ‘to foster the creation and dissemination of rigorous political inquiry while respecting different approaches and methods’ (Lima et al, 2018, p. 680). It is a generalist journal that is global in readership and authorship and thus constitutes an ideal case study journal to investigate the publishing patterns of political science students at the international level.…”

Relaciones internacionales feministas

“…En otras palabras, persiste la insistencia en cooptar las teorías feministas bajo una lógica de ciencia 3 Es importante destacar que Marchand escribe desde una perspectiva europea acerca de la disciplina de RR.II. La apertura epistemológica que ella subraya en su texto, retrata una diversidad que requiere escrutinio empírico, especialmente considerándose hallazgos recientes acerca del dogmatismo metodológico y de la baja presencia de mujeres en las revistas científicas de Ciencia Política y Relaciones Internacionales (Lenine & Mörschbächer, 2020;Lima et al, 2018;Rocha Carpiuc, 2016;Teele & Thelen, 2017).…”

Disseram que eu voltei americanizada: a história temática da Revista de Sociologia e Política

“…Há, nessa linha analítica, alguns estudos focados apenas em periódicos que permitem entender, por exemplo, as preferências metodológicas da Ciência Política (Kasza, 2010;Lima, Mörschbächer & Peres, 2018), as mudanças nos padrões de cientificidade e produção de inferências da área (Rezende, 2017) ou ainda o tipo de tratamento que um tema/região recebe (Cammett & Kendall, 2021). Análises críticas apoiadas em bibliometria, como a de Lenine e Mörschbächer (2020), destacam a produção de hierarquias de conhecimento e prestígio que são naturalizadas pela Ciência Política mundial e que funcionam como efeito e causa da "falta de pluralidade e diversidade de perfis profissionais na disciplina" (2020, p. 125).…”