Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-fqc5m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T21:24:43.409Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A Response to Jeffrey Isaac

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 October 2010

Extract

The purpose of the present symposium was to evaluate Perestroika's impact. Since the American Political Science Review (APSR), the American Journal of Political Science (AJPS), and the Journal of Politics (JOP) were all targets of criticism in the movement, whereas other national and regional association journals such as Perspectives on Politics and Political Research Quarterly were not, I looked for change in the former. Comparable data on the past contents of the APSR and AJPS had already been published, so I focused my recent surveys on those two. This focus implies no judgment as to the relative prestige of these journals. They pretend to represent the discipline as a whole and are paid for by all association members, and these are sufficient reasons to address their editorial biases.

Type
Symposium
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTE

1 The initial policy statement by the editors at UCLA can be found at https://www.apsanet.org/content_43281.cfm. They declare that “No paper will be excluded on the basis of subject matter or methodological approach.” This statement is par for the course, as the editors of these journals never confess to methodological bias. But in their lengthy discussion of the collective editorship in that document, they make no comment linking the form of the collective editorship to the goal of methodological pluralism.