Does anyone know if Brookings still offers post-docs and if so how you apply and where you can find information about it? I seem to remember that they used to offer both pre and post-docs but a review of their website yielded no info on this.
the fellowship thread is dead but FYI is the belfer list for next year: http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/project/46/international_security.html?page_id=34
The Junior Research Fellowship (JRF) season has just begun in Oxford and Cambridge, though most of the adverts will dribble out over the next few months. These are 3 or 4 year post-docs based in colleges; they usually have no teaching requirements. Many, though not all, are open to US PhD’s (or indeed those who are already on short US post-docs). This year at least one in Cambridge went to a US IR PhD; Oxford, of course, typically gives several to US PhD’s). For those who are interested, they are announced on a rolling basis, and are advertised in the weekly Cambridge "Reporter" or the Oxford “Gazette” (both on-line), as well as on the various college websites. Unfortunately, the application process is fairly laborious, as each college employs different forms...still, they are great post-docs...
This news is met with profound sorrow, tempered with tremendous gratitude and respect for the loss of a dedicated individual who tried to make practical use of her skills to make this a better world.
For whoever posted the link about the student who died in Iraq, thanks. It's the type of news that is easy to miss these days (though it shouldn't be).
I heard someone from GWU got a JRF at Oxford this year and turned down an offer from harvard. Don't have any other details. ANyone know if other US candidates got one?
A US IR candidate (Ohio State) got a JRF at Pembroke, Cambridge, starting in October. (The last holder of this particular JRF, which is in "Intenational Studies", was a Harvard PhD). In addition, a US political theory candidate (Harvard) got one at Emmanuel, Cambridge
I heard Larry Rubin (UCLA ABD) accepted a research fellow position in Arab politics at the Crown Center for Middle East Studies/Dept of Politics (Brandeis)-2008-2009.
For those of us new to the profession can you provide a general rank order of the best International Relations journals. I understand subfields may have a different ranking but for tenure purposes I need to know where to publish in order to impress the whole faculty.
IS certainly does have its problems, but I kind of would guess/know that Tom Christensen, Iain Johnston, Scott Sagan, Jack Snyder, Bob Jervis, and David Lake, among various other non-MIT/Chicago IR people whose careers haven't been total disasters, might be kind of OK with it. Given that they publish in the journal and all.
The last few posts, in my opinion, reveal how much variation there is among Departments.
Some places consider JCR a great outlet, others consider it a "turn the crank" journal.
Some places--and not just MIT or Chicago--consider International Security as a top-tier publication, while others view it as quasi-academic at best.
Most non-IR faculty, particularly Americanists, will be more impressed with APSR, AJPS, and JOP then *any* specialty IR journal, including IO.
I think, when it comes down to it:
1. As much as people--from all perspectives--gripe about the APSR, it still has an enormous amount of cache; everyone recognizes, at least, that it is very difficult to place an article at; 2. The other "discipline-wide" top-ranked journals, AJPS and JOP maximize your net "kudos" across the faculty; 3. IO has become the APSR of IR: lots of politics surrounding it; no one ever seems happy about its direction; but it will still impress colleagues in the field and they will probably explain that to the rest of the faculty at key meetings.
Beyond that, things get interesting. I'm struggling for a good turn of phrase, but the best I can come up with his that ISQ is the Honda of the field. It isn't particularly sexy, but most people consider it solid and serviceable. Most people in the field read it. So that makes it the top "lowest-common denominator" journal. I say this not as an insult: I think it is a testament to the strengths of ISQ.
World Politics is a strange one. Still very important in Comparative, but much less so in IR. When I was in grad school, people talked about World Politics the way they talk about IO now. But it isn't necessarily easy to publish in, still has a lot of prestige, and seems to be back on track in IR.
After that, it depends on the balance of power in, and orientation of, your Department.
One last comment: Security Studies is clearly rising in prestige right now among its target audience. This will likely continue given trends with IS. But IS remains the outlet of choice if you want to reach a non-academic (US) audience in a peer-reviewed IR journal.
This discussion is always a tricky one, especially outside of the obvious "top" journals already discussed here: APSR, AJPS, and JOP. IO and ISQ will usually get the attention of IR faculty (and maybe some comparativists), but after that it seems to depend on the idiosyncrasies of the department.
11:01 and others are probably right that Sec. Studies and International Security are valued highly by programs with a more traditional security focus. But for departments that focus on conflict processes I think JCR and the Journal of Peace Research have a lot more weight.
As a side note, I would also look to Comparative Political Studies as a consideration. They have published more IR-related research lately, and it is certainly one to attract the attention of comparative faculty.
Lastly, nice call on ISQ as the "Honda" of IR journals 1:25. I agree totally. Good gas mileage, solid reputation, few complaints, and lots of customer loyalty. As a grad student soon to enter the market, I would love a Honda pub.
I spoke to a few non-IR people at a conference once and they asked me if it's true that IS is very cliquey. I know this is no 'sample' but one could say that IS's reputation of publishing those who have spent time at belfer as research assistants or fellows has spread. (for the record, i do like IS so this isn't a jab at the journal. However, sometimes, I'm left wondering how a certain article got in)
I was wondering if someone had advice on how to navigate the different colleges at both Oxford and Cambridge? Some colleges work on both humanities and sciences others only on social sciences how do you know which is the best fit? Also, which colleges are more prone to hire political scientists? Are there some colleges that are particularly good placements for political scientists (qualitative, sociological theory types)? There's obviously Nuffield but what else? Thanks for any insight.
Just on the journals issue, if you look at the ISI citation data, an interesting trend has emerged. IS articles are cited heavily for a few years, then drop off, while IO articles are not cited all that much, then pick up quite a bit. I suspect this was not always the case for IS and reflects a shift in direction of sorts for the journal over the last decade. While it takes a long time, since reputations are "sticky", it seems like Security Studies publishes a lot more quality political science work in the security area these days, while IS is publishing less and less work that involves testing hypotheses, etc.
There are also issues with the IS review process, but I will mostly leave those to someone else to describe.
As far as the post above about non-Chicago and MIT people impressed by IS, the point is well taken. However, I think it is certainly fair to say that the IS editors simply find different questions "interesting" than the questions even most of the security community finds interesting (i.e. the offense-defense balance, etc). And that the review process seems to work differently than at other journals.
Rank for IR-specific journals: -IO (followed by big gap) -A social science article in IS -JCR -ISQ -JPR/SS (depending on whether you are more qualitative or quantitative) -A policy article in IS -Other places
World Politics is great, but do they publish in IR anymore?
12:14 suggests something of a trend; IO first w/disagreement below that. This has important implications for the field, but I don't want to go into that here.
What I will say is that I've seen clear evidence of IO's position, i.e., at faculty meetings IO and APSR get similar treatment (if it is in there, it must be good--or, at least, people who disagree will still admit the publication is impressive), but articles at other journals get more individual scrutiny.
To supplement 11:01 and 4:04, and to go back to the question of where to publish in IR journals for tenure related purposes; at some large research institutions (those several which I am familiar or have colleagues), ISQ is the only IR/Comparative journal to be considered with the same weight as the larger interdisciplinary journals such as AJPS and JOP.
On that note, the above laughter could have, in fact, been directed at an IS article being considered at that level (emphasis), for tenure related purposes.
Note to this: I'm not intentionally ignoring IO, only that I am much less familiar with its consideration and don't wish to chime in on it.
The most systematic research on the reputations of various journals within IR can be found in the William and Mary survey that comes out periodically.
The best research on what other political scientists think about various IR journals, and how IR journals compare to other political science journals can be found in the Garrand and Giles articles that are periodically published in PS.
My own subjective opinions on the subject of journal quality (as opposed to reputation):
1. IO is sill the premier journal, by far. The Mercedes Benz of IR.
2. ISQ is a great second.
3. APSR has been better in IR since the Perestroika shake up.
4. EJIR is now here to stay.
5. IS is getting worse.
6. SS is getting better. Last 5 years proves that sinking ships can be saved.
7. International Studies Review is very widely read and cited. Has published good stuff recently.
8. JCR is solid.
9. AJPS/JOP are very good but not much IR published there.
10. World Politics continues its slow descent into a cliquey comparative journal.
The really interesting development is the recent launch of a new journal with Snidal and Wendt as editors. It is called "International Theory" and, like its name suggests, it wants to be more like what IO was in the 1980s -- a place for IR theory. Based on the editorial board it looks a bit more eclectic. In addition to political scientists it also has law school types, sociologists, and philosophers.
I really don't mean to be snotty, but is a grad student who is unable to determine which journals are top tier really ready for teh job market? maybe spend some time thinking about where the articles you read for comps were published - I mean seriously, is this just trying to provoke arguments over journals?
The rise of Security Studies is a great thing for the profession. Now all you people out there just need to start citing articles from it so various rankings will start reflecting the reality we all know!!
I didn't ask the question, but I'll throw in my 2 cents. I think 9:10 sort of misses the point, which (I assume) was precisely to start a conversation. Presumably not all such reading lists overlap perfectly. Not to mention that journals are a moving target, and that widely-cited special issue of [Journal Name here] from two decades ago that you read for your oral exam might not be a good illustration of where the journal stands today, or where it is headed. There's a reason this conversation happens at least once every hiring cycle, and never completely goes away.
I'm not far removed from grad school, but even just a couple years' experience talking and working with others has given me a much greater appreciation of the field than I ever had while in grad school (head down, blinders on, etc.)
Maybe if I had just spent longer in grad school, I'd have figured all these things out while I was there. ;)
What were the chances that I'd make my once-in-a-quarter check of the blogs only to find a journals discussion where every other post begins with "just my opinion" and ends with "but that other guy is crazy if..."?
Why IS is declining? First, when a journal holds your submission for one year and then sends incoherent reviews, that is a bad sign. Second, the number of Political Science articles has declined and the number of policy articles have increased. Obviously, this is only bad if you want more political science articles published.
ummm 8:11 apart from the quality deteriorating significantly, there's also the little matter of a 1-year review process. The IO review process takes 2 months or less....
Ok. Here's are the various claims made about IS over the years. I will (mostly) reserve judgment and just throw them out there for your consideration:
(1) IS is not peer-reviewed. This is demonstrably false in almost all cases (speaking as one who has had work rejected from IS). IS has solicited pieces in the past--the forum of pieces immediately after 9/11 is the best example--but those are exceptional cases.
(2) An arguably more insidious version of claim 1: IS is peer-reviewed, but the editors don't always follow the guidance of their reviewers, choosing to publish what they want to publish.
(3) IS is an "old boys" network. The claim here is that IS tends disproportionately to publish certain mooseheads in the field and their students. In particular, certain people at Columbia, MIT, and Chicago are normally identified as the core of this network. [Personal opinion: I suspect empirical research would suggest that this claim is overstated, but I don't have the time to do the research.]
(4) IS tends disproportionately to publish the work of Belfer Center fellows. This may or may not be true, but even if it is, it is not *necessarily* evidence of something untoward. If the Belfer Center is identifying talented young scholars of international security, then perhaps it is not surprising that their work would appear disproportionately in IS. Of course, there is a less generous alternative hypotheses that could explain this.
(4) IS applies a methodological litmus test. The claim here is that IS will not publish work that is either formal theory or uses sophisticated quantitative methodologies.
(5) IS does not publish "social science." The claim is that IS tends to publish pieces that are more "journalistic" rather than social science. This is one area that I think people will claim that IS has been getting "worse." The number of IR theory articles appearing in IS *appears* to be in decline. Perhaps this is because *Security Studies* has increasingly become the theoretical journal of choice for many.
(6) The review process at IS takes an unacceptably long amount of time. IS allows double submissions to other journals in an attempt to appease authors, but this is useless since most other journals do not.
The sum total of these claims is increased dissatisfaction among many with IS. Combined with the widely perceived rise of *Security Studies* and the more efficient review process there, a number of people in the security studies field appear to be turning to *Security Studies* as their preferred journal.
I could write an equally long post with my views on these various claims, but consider this post simply informational.
I would add three things to the list on IS, which I think is great and informational without being judgmental.
1. Some say that the problem with the review process is that if the editors like your article and it fits their preconceived notions, it can get in in just a few months and with negative reviews. But even if you get great reviews, you might not get published if the editors don't like your piece.
2. Some people say that the review process is especially bad for quantitative articles. If the editors like a quantitative piece, they may publish it without significant revisions even if it gets reviews saying that the methods the author used were not just borderline, but plain old wrong. This also happens with qualitative articles, but less frequently.
3. Some say the problem is not that the editors are explicitly biased, but that the journal is a reflection of their interests, none of them are academics, and they are more and more disconnected from the field of IR, as are some of their closest compatriots. Given this, the questions they find interesting are more disconnected from the field and standards of research now prevalent in the field.
Again, this is just a list of complaints. These may or may not be completely valid.
On a personal note, I think the rise of Security Studies is wonderful and exactly what should happen in the *marketplace* given that IS is slipping.
The biggest issue is that even though it seems like many agree IS has some problems, there is no way to effectively communicate that information. The peer group of the editors is the group that doesn't not necessarily think IS has problems and the issues with the way IS selects reviewers for articles means even if they relied on reviewers more, it might not fix things. But most importantly, in my opinion the IS editors genuinely do not think it has slipped at all.
Same poster as 5:47. No disagreement with the follow-up e-mails. In particular, I should have included the point about the particular interests of the IS editors. IS has spent a fair amount of pages on things like the intra-realist debates and offense-defense theory that are not necessarily of interest to the larger field.
Worth noting that IS is one of the few journals in the field where editorial control does not rotate. World Politics is published out of Princeton, but even there, the editorial control appears to change periodically (that is, when WP is doing *anything*).
Given the lack of change in editorial control, I think one could sum up the various problems with IS by observing that it has grown stale. I would also have to think, however, that some of the people on the editorial board are aware of this issue and will try to do something to remedy it. After all, much of the credit for the resurgence of *Security Studies* belongs to John Mearsheimer and Bob Art, who saw that that journal was floundering and stepped in to address that situation. Both Mearsheimer and Art are also on the editorial board of IS, and both of them care deeply about the field.
It is not just that editorial control does not rotate, it is that editorial control is placed in the hands of people that are increasingly disconnected from the field of political science. The revitalization of Security Studies is connected to the decision to make the set of editors people that are:
1. Very active in the field itself. 2. Very diverse, theoretically, if not methodologically
Why not just have the security studies editors take over IS!! LOL.
But seriously, while anecdotal, I have heard of at least three people say over the last year that they are/will submit articles to Security Studies instead of IS in the future due to the review process and timeline issues. This will not decrease the flow of articles to IS if other people are right and they are getting more policy submissions from non-academics (I have also detected an increase in what seems like pre-comps grad students getting published), but it will change who is submitting articles.
On the other hand, editorship of J of Conflict Resolution has not rotated for what? -- 30 years at least? -- and it has consistently stayed in the top 10 (usually top 5) lists for IR journals.
True. JCR may be the proverbial exception that proves the rule. However, their methodological trend aside, in terms of the substance of the arguments in the journal, JCR publishes tons and tons of stuff that critiques either directly or indirectly lots of Russett's work and the work of his students. Also, the balance of editorial discretion versus reviewers seems much more even and the reviewer base generally seems more on-point.
No journal is perfect and we could collect examples of flaws in the review process at every journal. However, people have been suggesting that IS has fundamental problems that are negatively influencing its reputation within the discipline.
As a previous comment suggested, Bob Art and John Mearsheimer clearly helped to revive Security Studies and have helped to turn it into the premier outlet for theoretically oriented qualitative research. However, Sue Peterson and Mike Desch have also played an important role in the emergence of that journal. In fact, I expect Peterson and Desch have also contributed to the theoretical and methodological broadening of SS over the past 5 years.
I think the bottom line is that at a bare minimum peer reviewed IR journals that count for tenure should be run by people in the field, i.e. professors, who at least have to keep up with developments in some ways, shapes, and forms through being on hiring committees, advising students, and other activities. IS is not.
Many have played a key role in the revival of SS. The only reason I (original poster) mentioned Art and Mearsheimer, in particular, is because they also hold sway over IS (and I do think those involved would agree that Art and Mearsheimer played a particularly instrumental role in getting the ball rolling on the subsequent reforms at SS). No slight to anybody else intended.
As for the last post, I think it's perhaps a bit too extreme. The fact is that IS remains one of the most frequently cited journals in international relations. This wouldn't be the case if the editors were so far removed from the reality of the field.
Further, while the editors are not "practicing academics," they hardly have no interaction with the field. Those who edit IS also review applications for Belfer fellows every year (the functional equivalent of being on a hiring committee). IS has its problems--significant problems--but let's not suggest that its editors are from Mars while the rest of us are from Venus.
I actually think only one of the editors, and not the editor-in-chief, is involved with Belfer fellowship applications. I am not trying to weigh on the dispute, but just to clarify.
Good point on Mars v. Venus. However, I think it is probably true that reviewing fellowship applications is different from being on a hiring committee (a job file is a lot bigger than a fellowship file), and especially different from having to do things like teach field seminars and advise graduate students. Those last two things, especially, if you make an effort to stay up-to-date and do right by your students, force you to engage newer literature and see the broader field and how things work together. Perhaps that is what the 1:49PM poster, though a bit harsh, was trying to say?
Reviewing applications- Are you kidding? You think the process really works like that? What a joke. Talk to an insider. For some fellowships there is a committee of 1.
I think a reason for IS's style/reputation/bias is that the editorial staff remain deeply committed to the journal being widely read outside academia. In a sense the journal is a Foreign Affairs with more rigor (really) and a longer word limit.
Because of this, it may not be a good vehicle for aspirants to tenure, but it is a good vehicle to reach beyond tenure-letter writers.
On the other hand, given the people likely to be solicited to write letters for promotions within security studies, even the most qualified aspirant might feel a little nervous without an IS publication.
The Committee on Global Thought at Columbia University has just opened its Post-Doctoral Fellowship search. The Committee is a relatively new presence at the Columbia Campus, but it has already enlisted some of the biggest names in the Globalization field, including Stiglitz and Saskia Sassen. Global Thought aims to provide a space for interdisciplinary, transnational research under three broad themes: Secularism and Diversity, Global Governance, and Poverty and Inequality and is searching for scholars from any academic field. The application has been posted on their website, http://cgt.columbia.edu/docs/Jobs and is open until December 1st.
12:24 makes an excellent point, in my opinion. However, that point only covers the subset of articles in IS that are clearly policy articles, not the subset of articles that are supposed to speak to the academic study of international security. 12:24's point does not really address the criticisms many have levied here, including the long review timeframes, the inconsistent review process/judgments, the nature of the academic topics the editors finding interesting (offense-defense balance and such), and the way some of the key editors seem out of touch with developments even in the subfield of international security.
Even if the goal of the journal is to reach beyond academia, which I think we all probably agree is a worthy goal, that does not explain many of the criticisms people have made. Just imagine how much better IS would be if it adopted review policies like other journals.
The best IS articles, the one everyone remembers, are not the Foreign Affairs articles with footnotes and more rigor, they are the more academic articles. It is in that area, the publications that will get cited year after year, where IS has been slipping because of its biases.
Why is this perennial interest in rankings of journals? In my experience, you basically have to consider the following (for a top 15-25 institution with emphasis on research, below that your mileage may vary):
1) Impressing your peers. That is, the five or six major people in the precise subfield of the subfield of IR that you happen to work in. For instance, if you do formal IR, better make sure that the likes of Fearon and Powell know your name and like your work. These people will be writing your tenure letters. This means you should publish in journals they do: APSR, AJPS, IO for sure, JCR maybe, these days you can probably get away with ISQ as well.
2) Impressing your field colleagues in the department. Talk to the senior faculty, look at the where the most important ones have published. This will give you a sense of what kind of work they consider important (their own!). In my case, the list of journals was basically the same as in #1.
3) Impressing your colleagues at the department generally. APSR and AJPS hold the most cachet, especially because most of the people voting on your case will be Americanists. They will never have heard of World Politics or Security Studies or International Security. But they know JOP (which nobody in IR seems to read). Your IR colleagues will be able to persuade them that ISQ/JCR are fine too.
Citations mean squat, what you need is name recognition. Attach your name to same idea(s) so people know who you are and what you do.
Bottom line: at my institution, the "ranking" was clear:
Zero points for publishing in edited volumes, negative for publishing book reviews.
What you have to remember is that there is NO discipline-wide agreement about quality of journals. I suspect that the rankings at Chicago will be quite different from the ones at Harvard which will be different from the ones at Stanford, and so on. With a vita that gets you early tenure at a place like UCSD, you may not be allowed to use the front door at a place like Cornell, and vice versa.
So the ranking thing really is a useless discussion. You want people to admire you? Publish in APSR or, if you are in the East Coast mafia, IS. Plus, it's not like you can actually shop around for journals anyway. Normally, our work tends to fall into categories that are publishable by a handful of journals. Something that goes into JCR won't make it to APSR and something in the latter won't make it to IS. So write your stuff the best you can and send it to the appropriate journal. Then sacrifice a chicken and pray.
5:30 is largely right - it depends what you do and where you are. Formal theorists aren't going to be publishing in the same place as China people who aren't going to be publishing in the same place as ethnic conflict scholars. Figure out your peer group and where they publish, keep in mind your department's proclivities, and go from there.
5:30 is absolutely right. However, the futility of ranking journals should not distract us from the importance of trying to make our journals in each of our areas the best they can be. That was the spirit of the discussion about IS, I believe. A sense something has gone wrong in this decade.
I can see book reviews getting no points, since they are essentially a service activity. But negative points? Who takes away points for disciplinary service? Crazy!
(Granted, pre-tenure you wouldn't want the number of book reviews to exceed articles or even .5*(#ofarticles), but still...1 or 2 in good journals implies that someone recognizes you as enough of an authority to review others' work.)
When are we ever going to come to grips with the basic fact of our lives -- tenure is an idiosyncratic, biased, often random process that is as much (or more) about the inter-departmental dynamics, debates, and petty jealousies at the time you're up for tenure as it is about scholarship, quality, or contributions.
Beyond the generic -- "publish in the best places," "don't write book reviews" -- there is, in fact, no real answer.
"OFTEN random"? I'm not convinced about this. Suspect it is SELDOM random at R1s. It might be MORE random at SLACs, since the criteria are more varied and also a little more fluid.
The Helen Dwight Reid award is the major APSA IR dissertation prize. I'm not sure there are any other "major" ones. I think some of the APSA sections might give their own awards, but I wouldn't consider those major. I'm not aware of ISA giving any dissertation prizes.
As an aside, having served on multiple search committees, I don't put much stock in dissertation awards when evaluating candidates. The APSA award, for example, is selected by three faculty members all with their own biases, favorite methodological approaches, and--perhaps most importantly--friends who have told them that their student that year has written simply the best dissertation ever.
"The APSA award, for example, is selected by three faculty members all with their own biases, favorite methodological approaches, and--perhaps most importantly--friends who have told them that their student that year has written simply the best dissertation ever."
And how is this different from a major journal publication? Perhaps the bit about being told what a great dissertation it is. Ok, then it's more like a book pub. Exactly the same.
Any suggestions on where to find listings for acadmic and policy positions in international relations/international security. I am familiar with the job listings provided by APSA and the Chronicle of Higher Education. I am particularly interested in jobs in the Middle East field.
I am sorry to bring up the topic of journals again. But I was wondering which of the major IR/POL journals focused on quantitative articles vs. qualitative articles. There is always grumbling from quants that journals are going area studies (and from qualitative types that the most prestigious journals only publish statistically based articles). So which journals tend to which type of method?
Quantitative aritcles tend to appear in JCR, AJPS, APSR, JOP, International Interactions, and JPR.
Qualitative articles tend to appear in Security Studies, International Security, EJIR, RIPE, Review of International Studies, JIRD, and Global Governance.
IO, World Politics, and ISQ are about evenly divided between quant and qual.
If you look at the who was/wasn't tenured at R1 discussions of the past few years, how can you think of it as anything BUT random? "Lifestyle" moves, "upward mobility," blah blah post-hoc blah.
Everytime you see someone not tenured, the blog boards are full of "are they crazy how could they not tenure XYZ" rants.
If hiring and tenuring at R1s were as predictable as you make it out, I would expect to see much less turbulence. R1s would hire those candidates whom they believe have the highest probability of making tenure -- else why invest the resources?
Etc. etc. (And I find your R1/SLAC dichotomy odd -- how many R1s are there vs. how many "universities" are there?)
In any event, my basic point remains -- this isn't the place to come looking for work if you're interested in predictable career progression.
If hiring and tenuring at R1s were as predictable as you make it out, I would expect to see much less turbulence.
***************
Huh? Just how much turbulence is there? If all one did was read the rumor mill, then you'd think there's nothing but turbulence. But there are obviously huge selection effects in terms of what gets posted on the rumor mill. Not many people would interested in reading a post saying, "Breaking news! Joe Schmo is staying at Blah University for the eighteenth consecutive year."
I'd hypothesize that there's a lot more stability than there is turbulence in this (and most other) fields. And for good reasons--both personal and organizationally. Anybody who's been around this business for any length of time knows that moving a senior scholar is very difficult.
The "turbulence" gets such attention on this board precisely because it is relatively unusual, not because it is so common.
On a separate thread, I'm working on my first book and have been talking to 2 presses, Cornell and Penn. My work would fall broadly into Security Studies. Any thoughts on which one is better regarded?
We're going to open up a new thread for these discussions -- they really don't belong on "summer job rumors," and we''d appreciate it if the discussion gets relocated.
As a second-year graduate student, I am trying to navigate my way through the tumultuous and often ambiguous waters surrounding academia. I have heard various things regarding where to publish and where not to publish, but I am looking for a bit more insight. First, for someone at a top-30 school, but not one that commands the kind of respect bestowed unto the usual suspects, do I have to publish in one of the top 5 to get even a shrug from future employers? I have already seen one student in my program going out into the market who put all his eggs in the basket of one journal and was rejected after receiving an R&R. Now he has to apply for jobs coming from a top-30 school with no publications. Basically, should you try to publish in a top-5 journal (potentially risking rejection due to no-name status) even if it means that if/when you get rejected you have no publications to show for your 5-7 years? Second, if you are studying a subfield that does not involve nuclear missiles or war (this covers a lot of political science) and therefore your work would be better suited for journals that do not feature the word "security" in the title (read: readily rejected by top-5 journals due to research topic alone) should you publish in those journals or not at all? I can't imagine that political science is so security/warfare snobby that departments would favor no publications over publications in a smaller journal. Please advise and keep in mind that by narrowly defining the field or promoting security/war/nukes above all else you are critically limiting the range of acceptable research in the discipline. I am trying to gauge whether I have to cast aside my research interests (i.e. NOT conflict, security, etc.) in order to make any waves coming from a school outside the top tier.
have already seen one student in my program going out into the market who put all his eggs in the basket of one journal and was rejected after receiving an R&R. Now he has to apply for jobs coming from a top-30 school with no publications. Basically, should you try to publish in a top-5 journal (potentially risking rejection due to no-name status) even if it means that if/when you get rejected you have no publications to show for your 5-7 years?
If you are really worried about the job market then after 5-7 years you should have more than one publishable paper. Try to do the best work you can and if it ends up being a top-5 type of publication then by all means submit it there. If not, submit it elsewhere. Or, why not proceed one both tracks at the same time. Work on a 'big' general piece (presumably the center of your dissertation) that is worthy of a top-5 and even if it doesn't land there it will still land somewhere good. In addition, spend a few extra weekends cranking out some smaller pieces with a higher chance of getting published quickly.
Texas Tech has two IR jobs listed, which means the problem of retention there continues. But such turnover poses presents both good and bad news. TTU is a very good first job but a lousy long-term one. The turnover indicates that people can get work done and be competitive and then TTU fails to retain them.
As a member of the ever-enlarging club of ex-TTU poli sci profs, I would say that grad students looking for a good first job should apply (and that any senior people seeking the senior level job must really like cheap houses and short commutes as there is little else to offer for the long-term). The load is 2-2 with one of the classes always being a large American class (all students in Texas are required to take 2 poli sci classes), which becomes easy over time with TAs and multiple choice exams. The grad students do not produce that much and the undergrads are not demanding--again, this is both good and bad. Good in the sense that it is easy to get work done, bad in that it is not a terribly interesting place.
I don't know what has driven the more recent emigrants away so quickly, but the administration is fatally flawed from top to bottom. And Lubbock is not a terribly attractive place to live although one's income goes far due to no state income taxes and cheap houses. For folks looking for a few years to learn to teach and build a record, you can consider TTU to be the equivalent of a double or triple A ballclub--the goal is always to move on.
Umm, no Duncan Snidal is still thinking of coming to Oxford -2010-lol, again an unvalidated rumor. Second, why would anyone turn down an offer from Harvard to take up a JRF? Sure there's no teaching (although this depends on what your mentor thinks is good for you) but you basically get a graduate stipend and cannot afford to live anywhere but in the dorms.
96 comments:
Is there any information on the new Kroc School of Peace Studies at the University San Diego?
There was a late listing for a position at Spelman in Atlanta. I only saw it on their own website. Did anyone see it listed anywhere else?
Does anyone know if Brookings still offers post-docs and if so how you apply and where you can find information about it? I seem to remember that they used to offer both pre and post-docs but a review of their website yielded no info on this.
Are there any other post-docs in the DC area?
Thanks for your help!
the fellowship thread is dead but FYI is the belfer list for next year:
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/project/46/international_security.html?page_id=34
Last I heard (1-2 years ago), Brookings no longer offers post-docs and hasn't for quite some time.
The Junior Research Fellowship (JRF) season has just begun in Oxford and Cambridge, though most of the adverts will dribble out over the next few months. These are 3 or 4 year post-docs based in colleges; they usually have no teaching requirements. Many, though not all, are open to US PhD’s (or indeed those who are already on short US post-docs). This year at least one in Cambridge went to a US IR PhD; Oxford, of course, typically gives several to US PhD’s). For those who are interested, they are announced on a rolling basis, and are advertised in the weekly Cambridge "Reporter" or the Oxford “Gazette” (both on-line), as well as on the various college websites. Unfortunately, the application process is fairly laborious, as each college employs different forms...still, they are great post-docs...
> The Center for Global Affairs at NYU has extended an offer to a UK-based scholar. (Not sure who)
I thought Thomas Floras (UMich) was going to the CGA?
Headline: Johns Hopkins Poli Sci Grad Student Dies in Sadr City Bombing.
http://www.cnn.com/2008
/WORLD/meast/06/
26/iraq.american.death/index.html
This news is met with profound sorrow, tempered with tremendous gratitude and respect for the loss of a dedicated individual who tried to make practical use of her skills to make this a better world.
For whoever posted the link about the student who died in Iraq, thanks. It's the type of news that is easy to miss these days (though it shouldn't be).
Anyone know what's happening with the Syracuse positions?
6/16/08 10:36am
Come on, you're killing us! Those of us in Oxford have enough troubles without having to compete with American PhD's for JRFs :>
Don't worry, most of the JRF's are rigged so that internal candidates get them. There are some exceptions, but that's what they are - exceptions.
so we know about Brookings and Belfer; anyone know who went to CISAC?
I heard someone from GWU got a JRF at Oxford this year and turned down an offer from harvard. Don't have any other details. ANyone know if other US candidates got one?
Wiki reports that Oxford (Nuffield) has made an offer.
A US IR candidate (Ohio State) got a JRF at Pembroke, Cambridge, starting in October. (The last holder of this particular JRF, which is in "Intenational Studies", was a Harvard PhD). In addition, a US political theory candidate (Harvard) got one at Emmanuel, Cambridge
I heard Larry Rubin (UCLA ABD) accepted a research fellow position in Arab politics at the Crown Center for Middle East Studies/Dept of Politics (Brandeis)-2008-2009.
(source: fellow grad student)
Does anyone know if Princeton made an IR hire last year? I know they had interviews.
For those of us new to the profession can you provide a general rank order of the best International Relations journals. I understand subfields may have a different ranking but for tenure purposes I need to know where to publish in order to impress the whole faculty.
The Big 5 - not necessarily the best journals (and certainly not representative of the field globally), but important for tenure :
International Organization
American Political Science Review
International Security
International Studies Quarterly
World Politics
Yes, and I'd add Security Studies and the Journal of Conflict Resolution.
Hmm, 8:47 AM asked for IR journals that would impress the whole faculty.
That's a bit of a conundrum. I'd say journals to impress the whole faculty:
APSR
AJPS for Americanistst and comparativists
JOP -- for the Americanists (but rising)
IR Journals:
IO
ISQ
JCR
World Politics, also for Comparativists
IS or SS won't impress anybody outside of MIT and Chicago.
IS certainly does have its problems, but I kind of would guess/know that Tom Christensen, Iain Johnston, Scott Sagan, Jack Snyder, Bob Jervis, and David Lake, among various other non-MIT/Chicago IR people whose careers haven't been total disasters, might be kind of OK with it. Given that they publish in the journal and all.
The last few posts, in my opinion, reveal how much variation there is among Departments.
Some places consider JCR a great outlet, others consider it a "turn the crank" journal.
Some places--and not just MIT or Chicago--consider International Security as a top-tier publication, while others view it as quasi-academic at best.
Most non-IR faculty, particularly Americanists, will be more impressed with APSR, AJPS, and JOP then *any* specialty IR journal, including IO.
I think, when it comes down to it:
1. As much as people--from all perspectives--gripe about the APSR, it still has an enormous amount of cache; everyone recognizes, at least, that it is very difficult to place an article at;
2. The other "discipline-wide" top-ranked journals, AJPS and JOP maximize your net "kudos" across the faculty;
3. IO has become the APSR of IR: lots of politics surrounding it; no one ever seems happy about its direction; but it will still impress colleagues in the field and they will probably explain that to the rest of the faculty at key meetings.
Beyond that, things get interesting. I'm struggling for a good turn of phrase, but the best I can come up with his that ISQ is the Honda of the field. It isn't particularly sexy, but most people consider it solid and serviceable. Most people in the field read it. So that makes it the top "lowest-common denominator" journal. I say this not as an insult: I think it is a testament to the strengths of ISQ.
World Politics is a strange one. Still very important in Comparative, but much less so in IR. When I was in grad school, people talked about World Politics the way they talk about IO now. But it isn't necessarily easy to publish in, still has a lot of prestige, and seems to be back on track in IR.
After that, it depends on the balance of power in, and orientation of, your Department.
One last comment: Security Studies is clearly rising in prestige right now among its target audience. This will likely continue given trends with IS. But IS remains the outlet of choice if you want to reach a non-academic (US) audience in a peer-reviewed IR journal.
This discussion is always a tricky one, especially outside of the obvious "top" journals already discussed here: APSR, AJPS, and JOP. IO and ISQ will usually get the attention of IR faculty (and maybe some comparativists), but after that it seems to depend on the idiosyncrasies of the department.
11:01 and others are probably right that Sec. Studies and International Security are valued highly by programs with a more traditional security focus. But for departments that focus on conflict processes I think JCR and the Journal of Peace Research have a lot more weight.
As a side note, I would also look to Comparative Political Studies as a consideration. They have published more IR-related research lately, and it is certainly one to attract the attention of comparative faculty.
Lastly, nice call on ISQ as the "Honda" of IR journals 1:25. I agree totally. Good gas mileage, solid reputation, few complaints, and lots of customer loyalty. As a grad student soon to enter the market, I would love a Honda pub.
I spoke to a few non-IR people at a conference once and they asked me if it's true that IS is very cliquey. I know this is no 'sample' but one could say that IS's reputation of publishing those who have spent time at belfer as research assistants or fellows has spread. (for the record, i do like IS so this isn't a jab at the journal. However, sometimes, I'm left wondering how a certain article got in)
For how IR professionals rank the journals, see William & Mary study at http://www.wm.edu/irtheoryandpractice/trip/surveyreport06-07.pdf
where the best place to look for the job openings for mainstream (US) polisci jobs? Just APSAnet?
I was wondering if someone had advice on how to navigate the different colleges at both Oxford and Cambridge? Some colleges work on both humanities and sciences others only on social sciences how do you know which is the best fit? Also, which colleges are more prone to hire political scientists? Are there some colleges that are particularly good placements for political scientists (qualitative, sociological theory types)? There's obviously Nuffield but what else? Thanks for any insight.
Just on the journals issue, if you look at the ISI citation data, an interesting trend has emerged. IS articles are cited heavily for a few years, then drop off, while IO articles are not cited all that much, then pick up quite a bit. I suspect this was not always the case for IS and reflects a shift in direction of sorts for the journal over the last decade. While it takes a long time, since reputations are "sticky", it seems like Security Studies publishes a lot more quality political science work in the security area these days, while IS is publishing less and less work that involves testing hypotheses, etc.
There are also issues with the IS review process, but I will mostly leave those to someone else to describe.
As far as the post above about non-Chicago and MIT people impressed by IS, the point is well taken. However, I think it is certainly fair to say that the IS editors simply find different questions "interesting" than the questions even most of the security community finds interesting (i.e. the offense-defense balance, etc). And that the review process seems to work differently than at other journals.
Rank for IR-specific journals:
-IO (followed by big gap)
-A social science article in IS
-JCR
-ISQ
-JPR/SS (depending on whether you are more qualitative or quantitative)
-A policy article in IS
-Other places
World Politics is great, but do they publish in IR anymore?
12:14 suggests something of a trend; IO first w/disagreement below that. This has important implications for the field, but I don't want to go into that here.
What I will say is that I've seen clear evidence of IO's position, i.e., at faculty meetings IO and APSR get similar treatment (if it is in there, it must be good--or, at least, people who disagree will still admit the publication is impressive), but articles at other journals get more individual scrutiny.
12:14 PM, July 17, 2008...
Ha.
Hahahaha.
1:13. You have a better list? I actually thought the separation of different types of IS articles, to reflect the shift in the journal, was clever.
I think the laughter was directed at the World Politics comment. An oldie but goody....
Many people discussing journals have referenced IS' problems but no one wants to describe what they are, even anonymously. What gives?
To supplement 11:01 and 4:04, and to go back to the question of where to publish in IR journals for tenure related purposes; at some large research institutions (those several which I am familiar or have colleagues), ISQ is the only IR/Comparative journal to be considered with the same weight as the larger interdisciplinary journals such as AJPS and JOP.
On that note, the above laughter could have, in fact, been directed at an IS article being considered at that level (emphasis), for tenure related purposes.
Note to this: I'm not intentionally ignoring IO, only that I am much less familiar with its consideration and don't wish to chime in on it.
The most systematic research on the reputations of various journals within IR can be found in the William and Mary survey that comes out periodically.
The best research on what other political scientists think about various IR journals, and how IR journals compare to other political science journals can be found in the Garrand and Giles articles that are periodically published in PS.
My own subjective opinions on the subject of journal quality (as opposed to reputation):
1. IO is sill the premier journal, by far. The Mercedes Benz of IR.
2. ISQ is a great second.
3. APSR has been better in IR since the Perestroika shake up.
4. EJIR is now here to stay.
5. IS is getting worse.
6. SS is getting better. Last 5 years proves that sinking ships can be saved.
7. International Studies Review is very widely read and cited. Has published good stuff recently.
8. JCR is solid.
9. AJPS/JOP are very good but not much IR published there.
10. World Politics continues its slow descent into a cliquey comparative journal.
The really interesting development is the recent launch of a new journal with Snidal and Wendt as editors. It is called "International Theory" and, like its name suggests, it wants to be more like what IO was in the 1980s -- a place for IR theory. Based on the editorial board it looks a bit more eclectic. In addition to political scientists it also has law school types, sociologists, and philosophers.
I really don't mean to be snotty, but is a grad student who is unable to determine which journals are top tier really ready for teh job market? maybe spend some time thinking about where the articles you read for comps were published - I mean seriously, is this just trying to provoke arguments over journals?
The rise of Security Studies is a great thing for the profession. Now all you people out there just need to start citing articles from it so various rankings will start reflecting the reality we all know!!
I didn't ask the question, but I'll throw in my 2 cents. I think 9:10 sort of misses the point, which (I assume) was precisely to start a conversation. Presumably not all such reading lists overlap perfectly. Not to mention that journals are a moving target, and that widely-cited special issue of [Journal Name here] from two decades ago that you read for your oral exam might not be a good illustration of where the journal stands today, or where it is headed. There's a reason this conversation happens at least once every hiring cycle, and never completely goes away.
I'm not far removed from grad school, but even just a couple years' experience talking and working with others has given me a much greater appreciation of the field than I ever had while in grad school (head down, blinders on, etc.)
Maybe if I had just spent longer in grad school, I'd have figured all these things out while I was there. ;)
Good lord, a journal discussion.
What were the chances that I'd make my once-in-a-quarter check of the blogs only to find a journals discussion where every other post begins with "just my opinion" and ends with "but that other guy is crazy if..."?
About 1 in 2?
Just to re-ask an earlier question: what exactly is causing so many people to say 'IS is getting worse'?
Why IS is declining? First, when a journal holds your submission for one year and then sends incoherent reviews, that is a bad sign. Second, the number of Political Science articles has declined and the number of policy articles have increased. Obviously, this is only bad if you want more political science articles published.
ummm 8:11 apart from the quality deteriorating significantly, there's also the little matter of a 1-year review process. The IO review process takes 2 months or less....
Ok. Here's are the various claims made about IS over the years. I will (mostly) reserve judgment and just throw them out there for your consideration:
(1) IS is not peer-reviewed. This is demonstrably false in almost all cases (speaking as one who has had work rejected from IS). IS has solicited pieces in the past--the forum of pieces immediately after 9/11 is the best example--but those are exceptional cases.
(2) An arguably more insidious version of claim 1: IS is peer-reviewed, but the editors don't always follow the guidance of their reviewers, choosing to publish what they want to publish.
(3) IS is an "old boys" network. The claim here is that IS tends disproportionately to publish certain mooseheads in the field and their students. In particular, certain people at Columbia, MIT, and Chicago are normally identified as the core of this network. [Personal opinion: I suspect empirical research would suggest that this claim is overstated, but I don't have the time to do the research.]
(4) IS tends disproportionately to publish the work of Belfer Center fellows. This may or may not be true, but even if it is, it is not *necessarily* evidence of something untoward. If the Belfer Center is identifying talented young scholars of international security, then perhaps it is not surprising that their work would appear disproportionately in IS. Of course, there is a less generous alternative hypotheses that could explain this.
(4) IS applies a methodological litmus test. The claim here is that IS will not publish work that is either formal theory or uses sophisticated quantitative methodologies.
(5) IS does not publish "social science." The claim is that IS tends to publish pieces that are more "journalistic" rather than social science. This is one area that I think people will claim that IS has been getting "worse." The number of IR theory articles appearing in IS *appears* to be in decline. Perhaps this is because *Security Studies* has increasingly become the theoretical journal of choice for many.
(6) The review process at IS takes an unacceptably long amount of time. IS allows double submissions to other journals in an attempt to appease authors, but this is useless since most other journals do not.
The sum total of these claims is increased dissatisfaction among many with IS. Combined with the widely perceived rise of *Security Studies* and the more efficient review process there, a number of people in the security studies field appear to be turning to *Security Studies* as their preferred journal.
I could write an equally long post with my views on these various claims, but consider this post simply informational.
I would add three things to the list on IS, which I think is great and informational without being judgmental.
1. Some say that the problem with the review process is that if the editors like your article and it fits their preconceived notions, it can get in in just a few months and with negative reviews. But even if you get great reviews, you might not get published if the editors don't like your piece.
2. Some people say that the review process is especially bad for quantitative articles. If the editors like a quantitative piece, they may publish it without significant revisions even if it gets reviews saying that the methods the author used were not just borderline, but plain old wrong. This also happens with qualitative articles, but less frequently.
3. Some say the problem is not that the editors are explicitly biased, but that the journal is a reflection of their interests, none of them are academics, and they are more and more disconnected from the field of IR, as are some of their closest compatriots. Given this, the questions they find interesting are more disconnected from the field and standards of research now prevalent in the field.
Again, this is just a list of complaints. These may or may not be completely valid.
On a personal note, I think the rise of Security Studies is wonderful and exactly what should happen in the *marketplace* given that IS is slipping.
The biggest issue is that even though it seems like many agree IS has some problems, there is no way to effectively communicate that information. The peer group of the editors is the group that doesn't not necessarily think IS has problems and the issues with the way IS selects reviewers for articles means even if they relied on reviewers more, it might not fix things. But most importantly, in my opinion the IS editors genuinely do not think it has slipped at all.
Same poster as 5:47. No disagreement with the follow-up e-mails. In particular, I should have included the point about the particular interests of the IS editors. IS has spent a fair amount of pages on things like the intra-realist debates and offense-defense theory that are not necessarily of interest to the larger field.
Worth noting that IS is one of the few journals in the field where editorial control does not rotate. World Politics is published out of Princeton, but even there, the editorial control appears to change periodically (that is, when WP is doing *anything*).
Given the lack of change in editorial control, I think one could sum up the various problems with IS by observing that it has grown stale. I would also have to think, however, that some of the people on the editorial board are aware of this issue and will try to do something to remedy it. After all, much of the credit for the resurgence of *Security Studies* belongs to John Mearsheimer and Bob Art, who saw that that journal was floundering and stepped in to address that situation. Both Mearsheimer and Art are also on the editorial board of IS, and both of them care deeply about the field.
It is not just that editorial control does not rotate, it is that editorial control is placed in the hands of people that are increasingly disconnected from the field of political science. The revitalization of Security Studies is connected to the decision to make the set of editors people that are:
1. Very active in the field itself.
2. Very diverse, theoretically, if not methodologically
Why not just have the security studies editors take over IS!! LOL.
But seriously, while anecdotal, I have heard of at least three people say over the last year that they are/will submit articles to Security Studies instead of IS in the future due to the review process and timeline issues. This will not decrease the flow of articles to IS if other people are right and they are getting more policy submissions from non-academics (I have also detected an increase in what seems like pre-comps grad students getting published), but it will change who is submitting articles.
On the other hand, editorship of J of Conflict Resolution has not rotated for what? -- 30 years at least? -- and it has consistently stayed in the top 10 (usually top 5) lists for IR journals.
True. JCR may be the proverbial exception that proves the rule. However, their methodological trend aside, in terms of the substance of the arguments in the journal, JCR publishes tons and tons of stuff that critiques either directly or indirectly lots of Russett's work and the work of his students. Also, the balance of editorial discretion versus reviewers seems much more even and the reviewer base generally seems more on-point.
No journal is perfect and we could collect examples of flaws in the review process at every journal. However, people have been suggesting that IS has fundamental problems that are negatively influencing its reputation within the discipline.
As a previous comment suggested, Bob Art and John Mearsheimer clearly helped to revive Security Studies and have helped to turn it into the premier outlet for theoretically oriented qualitative research. However, Sue Peterson and Mike Desch have also played an important role in the emergence of that journal. In fact, I expect Peterson and Desch have also contributed to the theoretical and methodological broadening of SS over the past 5 years.
Don't forget Bill Wohlforth, Eugene Gholz, Elizabeth Kier, and Theo Farrell at SS either. . . .
I think the bottom line is that at a bare minimum peer reviewed IR journals that count for tenure should be run by people in the field, i.e. professors, who at least have to keep up with developments in some ways, shapes, and forms through being on hiring committees, advising students, and other activities. IS is not.
Many have played a key role in the revival of SS. The only reason I (original poster) mentioned Art and Mearsheimer, in particular, is because they also hold sway over IS (and I do think those involved would agree that Art and Mearsheimer played a particularly instrumental role in getting the ball rolling on the subsequent reforms at SS). No slight to anybody else intended.
As for the last post, I think it's perhaps a bit too extreme. The fact is that IS remains one of the most frequently cited journals in international relations. This wouldn't be the case if the editors were so far removed from the reality of the field.
Further, while the editors are not "practicing academics," they hardly have no interaction with the field. Those who edit IS also review applications for Belfer fellows every year (the functional equivalent of being on a hiring committee). IS has its problems--significant problems--but let's not suggest that its editors are from Mars while the rest of us are from Venus.
I actually think only one of the editors, and not the editor-in-chief, is involved with Belfer fellowship applications. I am not trying to weigh on the dispute, but just to clarify.
Good point on Mars v. Venus. However, I think it is probably true that reviewing fellowship applications is different from being on a hiring committee (a job file is a lot bigger than a fellowship file), and especially different from having to do things like teach field seminars and advise graduate students. Those last two things, especially, if you make an effort to stay up-to-date and do right by your students, force you to engage newer literature and see the broader field and how things work together. Perhaps that is what the 1:49PM poster, though a bit harsh, was trying to say?
I created a new wiki for this year's job market:
http://bluwiki.com/go/Polisci0809
fill it in!
Reviewing applications- Are you kidding? You think the process really works like that? What a joke. Talk to an insider. For some fellowships there is a committee of 1.
Is Snidal leaving Chicago?
I think a reason for IS's style/reputation/bias is that the editorial staff remain deeply committed to the journal being widely read outside academia. In a sense the journal is a Foreign Affairs with more rigor (really) and a longer word limit.
Because of this, it may not be a good vehicle for aspirants to tenure, but it is a good vehicle to reach beyond tenure-letter writers.
On the other hand, given the people likely to be solicited to write letters for promotions within security studies, even the most qualified aspirant might feel a little nervous without an IS publication.
The Committee on Global Thought at Columbia University has just opened its Post-Doctoral Fellowship search. The Committee is a relatively new presence at the Columbia Campus, but it has already enlisted some of the biggest names in the Globalization field, including Stiglitz and Saskia Sassen. Global Thought aims to provide a space for interdisciplinary, transnational research under three broad themes: Secularism and Diversity, Global Governance, and Poverty and Inequality and is searching for scholars from any academic field. The application has been posted on their website, http://cgt.columbia.edu/docs/Jobs and is open until December 1st.
12:24 makes an excellent point, in my opinion. However, that point only covers the subset of articles in IS that are clearly policy articles, not the subset of articles that are supposed to speak to the academic study of international security. 12:24's point does not really address the criticisms many have levied here, including the long review timeframes, the inconsistent review process/judgments, the nature of the academic topics the editors finding interesting (offense-defense balance and such), and the way some of the key editors seem out of touch with developments even in the subfield of international security.
Even if the goal of the journal is to reach beyond academia, which I think we all probably agree is a worthy goal, that does not explain many of the criticisms people have made. Just imagine how much better IS would be if it adopted review policies like other journals.
It is only recently (last 5 years) that IS has become a more rigorous Foreign Affairs. There used to be quite a bit more divergence.
Okay, so you're an IS fan. we get it.
What is clear from this exchange is that there are deeply divided views about IS. Sounds pretty clubby to me.
But this comment won't get past the moderator anyway...
The best IS articles, the one everyone remembers, are not the Foreign Affairs articles with footnotes and more rigor, they are the more academic articles. It is in that area, the publications that will get cited year after year, where IS has been slipping because of its biases.
Why is this perennial interest in rankings of journals? In my experience, you basically have to consider the following (for a top 15-25 institution with emphasis on research, below that your mileage may vary):
1) Impressing your peers. That is, the five or six major people in the precise subfield of the subfield of IR that you happen to work in. For instance, if you do formal IR, better make sure that the likes of Fearon and Powell know your name and like your work. These people will be writing your tenure letters. This means you should publish in journals they do: APSR, AJPS, IO for sure, JCR maybe, these days you can probably get away with ISQ as well.
2) Impressing your field colleagues in the department. Talk to the senior faculty, look at the where the most important ones have published. This will give you a sense of what kind of work they consider important (their own!). In my case, the list of journals was basically the same as in #1.
3) Impressing your colleagues at the department generally. APSR and AJPS hold the most cachet, especially because most of the people voting on your case will be Americanists. They will never have heard of World Politics or Security Studies or International Security. But they know JOP (which nobody in IR seems to read). Your IR colleagues will be able to persuade them that ISQ/JCR are fine too.
Citations mean squat, what you need is name recognition. Attach your name to same idea(s) so people know who you are and what you do.
Bottom line: at my institution, the "ranking" was clear:
1. APSR
2. AJPS
3. IO
4. ISQ
5. JCR
6. JOP/IS/SS
7. Various watchamacallits
Zero points for publishing in edited volumes, negative for publishing book reviews.
What you have to remember is that there is NO discipline-wide agreement about quality of journals. I suspect that the rankings at Chicago will be quite different from the ones at Harvard which will be different from the ones at Stanford, and so on. With a vita that gets you early tenure at a place like UCSD, you may not be allowed to use the front door at a place like Cornell, and vice versa.
So the ranking thing really is a useless discussion. You want people to admire you? Publish in APSR or, if you are in the East Coast mafia, IS. Plus, it's not like you can actually shop around for journals anyway. Normally, our work tends to fall into categories that are publishable by a handful of journals. Something that goes into JCR won't make it to APSR and something in the latter won't make it to IS. So write your stuff the best you can and send it to the appropriate journal. Then sacrifice a chicken and pray.
5:30 is largely right - it depends what you do and where you are. Formal theorists aren't going to be publishing in the same place as China people who aren't going to be publishing in the same place as ethnic conflict scholars. Figure out your peer group and where they publish, keep in mind your department's proclivities, and go from there.
5:30 Good Advice!
5:30 is absolutely right. However, the futility of ranking journals should not distract us from the importance of trying to make our journals in each of our areas the best they can be. That was the spirit of the discussion about IS, I believe. A sense something has gone wrong in this decade.
I can see book reviews getting no points, since they are essentially a service activity. But negative points? Who takes away points for disciplinary service? Crazy!
(Granted, pre-tenure you wouldn't want the number of book reviews to exceed articles or even .5*(#ofarticles), but still...1 or 2 in good journals implies that someone recognizes you as enough of an authority to review others' work.)
Oy.
When are we ever going to come to grips with the basic fact of our lives -- tenure is an idiosyncratic, biased, often random process that is as much (or more) about the inter-departmental dynamics, debates, and petty jealousies at the time you're up for tenure as it is about scholarship, quality, or contributions.
Beyond the generic -- "publish in the best places," "don't write book reviews" -- there is, in fact, no real answer.
"OFTEN random"?
I'm not convinced about this. Suspect it is SELDOM random at
R1s. It might be MORE random at SLACs, since the criteria are more varied and also a little more fluid.
What are the major dissertation prizes for IR?
The Helen Dwight Reid award is the major APSA IR dissertation prize. I'm not sure there are any other "major" ones. I think some of the APSA sections might give their own awards, but I wouldn't consider those major. I'm not aware of ISA giving any dissertation prizes.
As an aside, having served on multiple search committees, I don't put much stock in dissertation awards when evaluating candidates. The APSA award, for example, is selected by three faculty members all with their own biases, favorite methodological approaches, and--perhaps most importantly--friends who have told them that their student that year has written simply the best dissertation ever.
"The APSA award, for example, is selected by three faculty members all with their own biases, favorite methodological approaches, and--perhaps most importantly--friends who have told them that their student that year has written simply the best dissertation ever."
And how is this different from a major journal publication? Perhaps the bit about being told what a great dissertation it is. Ok, then it's more like a book pub. Exactly the same.
Any suggestions on where to find listings for acadmic and policy positions in international relations/international security. I am familiar with the job listings provided by APSA and the Chronicle of Higher Education. I am particularly interested in jobs in the Middle East field.
I am sorry to bring up the topic of journals again. But I was wondering which of the major IR/POL journals focused on quantitative articles vs. qualitative articles. There is always grumbling from quants that journals are going area studies (and from qualitative types that the most prestigious journals only publish statistically based articles). So which journals tend to which type of method?
Does anyone know anything about the new Routledge journal the "Journal of Power"?
Quantitative aritcles tend to appear in JCR, AJPS, APSR, JOP, International Interactions, and JPR.
Qualitative articles tend to appear in Security Studies, International Security, EJIR, RIPE, Review of International Studies, JIRD, and Global Governance.
IO, World Politics, and ISQ are about evenly divided between quant and qual.
If you look at the who was/wasn't tenured at R1 discussions of the past few years, how can you think of it as anything BUT random? "Lifestyle" moves, "upward mobility," blah blah post-hoc blah.
Everytime you see someone not tenured, the blog boards are full of "are they crazy how could they not tenure XYZ" rants.
If hiring and tenuring at R1s were as predictable as you make it out, I would expect to see much less turbulence. R1s would hire those candidates whom they believe have the highest probability of making tenure -- else why invest the resources?
Etc. etc. (And I find your R1/SLAC dichotomy odd -- how many R1s are there vs. how many "universities" are there?)
In any event, my basic point remains -- this isn't the place to come looking for work if you're interested in predictable career progression.
If hiring and tenuring at R1s were as predictable as you make it out, I would expect to see much less turbulence.
***************
Huh? Just how much turbulence is there? If all one did was read the rumor mill, then you'd think there's nothing but turbulence. But there are obviously huge selection effects in terms of what gets posted on the rumor mill. Not many people would interested in reading a post saying, "Breaking news! Joe Schmo is staying at Blah University for the eighteenth consecutive year."
I'd hypothesize that there's a lot more stability than there is turbulence in this (and most other) fields. And for good reasons--both personal and organizationally. Anybody who's been around this business for any length of time knows that moving a senior scholar is very difficult.
The "turbulence" gets such attention on this board precisely because it is relatively unusual, not because it is so common.
On a separate thread, I'm working on my first book and have been talking to 2 presses, Cornell and Penn. My work would fall broadly into Security Studies. Any thoughts on which one is better regarded?
We're going to open up a new thread for these discussions -- they really don't belong on "summer job rumors," and we''d appreciate it if the discussion gets relocated.
Per Snidal question: is he leaving Chicago, or not? I heard he interviewed for a job at Oxford in the spring.
As a second-year graduate student, I am trying to navigate my way through the tumultuous and often ambiguous waters surrounding academia. I have heard various things regarding where to publish and where not to publish, but I am looking for a bit more insight. First, for someone at a top-30 school, but not one that commands the kind of respect bestowed unto the usual suspects, do I have to publish in one of the top 5 to get even a shrug from future employers? I have already seen one student in my program going out into the market who put all his eggs in the basket of one journal and was rejected after receiving an R&R. Now he has to apply for jobs coming from a top-30 school with no publications. Basically, should you try to publish in a top-5 journal (potentially risking rejection due to no-name status) even if it means that if/when you get rejected you have no publications to show for your 5-7 years? Second, if you are studying a subfield that does not involve nuclear missiles or war (this covers a lot of political science) and therefore your work would be better suited for journals that do not feature the word "security" in the title (read: readily rejected by top-5 journals due to research topic alone) should you publish in those journals or not at all? I can't imagine that political science is so security/warfare snobby that departments would favor no publications over publications in a smaller journal. Please advise and keep in mind that by narrowly defining the field or promoting security/war/nukes above all else you are critically limiting the range of acceptable research in the discipline. I am trying to gauge whether I have to cast aside my research interests (i.e. NOT conflict, security, etc.) in order to make any waves coming from a school outside the top tier.
have already seen one student in my program going out into the market who put all his eggs in the basket of one journal and was rejected after receiving an R&R. Now he has to apply for jobs coming from a top-30 school with no publications. Basically, should you try to publish in a top-5 journal (potentially risking rejection due to no-name status) even if it means that if/when you get rejected you have no publications to show for your 5-7 years?
If you are really worried about the job market then after 5-7 years you should have more than one publishable paper. Try to do the best work you can and if it ends up being a top-5 type of publication then by all means submit it there. If not, submit it elsewhere. Or, why not proceed one both tracks at the same time. Work on a 'big' general piece (presumably the center of your dissertation) that is worthy of a top-5 and even if it doesn't land there it will still land somewhere good. In addition, spend a few extra weekends cranking out some smaller pieces with a higher chance of getting published quickly.
Back to jobs listed....
Texas Tech has two IR jobs listed, which means the problem of retention there continues. But such turnover poses presents both good and bad news. TTU is a very good first job but a lousy long-term one. The turnover indicates that people can get work done and be competitive and then TTU fails to retain them.
As a member of the ever-enlarging club of ex-TTU poli sci profs, I would say that grad students looking for a good first job should apply (and that any senior people seeking the senior level job must really like cheap houses and short commutes as there is little else to offer for the long-term).
The load is 2-2 with one of the classes always being a large American class (all students in Texas are required to take 2 poli sci classes), which becomes easy over time with TAs and multiple choice exams.
The grad students do not produce that much and the undergrads are not demanding--again, this is both good and bad. Good in the sense that it is easy to get work done, bad in that it is not a terribly interesting place.
I don't know what has driven the more recent emigrants away so quickly, but the administration is fatally flawed from top to bottom. And Lubbock is not a terribly attractive place to live although one's income goes far due to no state income taxes and cheap houses. For folks looking for a few years to learn to teach and build a record, you can consider TTU to be the equivalent of a double or triple A ballclub--the goal is always to move on.
Thanks for the advice on TTU. That was both informative and useful.
We can now confirm that Duncan Snidal has received an offer from Oxford, but has made no decision on whether or not to move.
Oxford is looking extremely strong - across the board - these days.
Umm, no Duncan Snidal is still thinking of coming to Oxford -2010-lol, again an unvalidated rumor.
Second, why would anyone turn down an offer from Harvard to take up a JRF? Sure there's no teaching (although this depends on what your mentor thinks is good for you) but you basically get a graduate stipend and cannot afford to live anywhere but in the dorms.
Snidal has been thinking about Oxford for over two years. Something tells me he's not going.
Post a Comment