Graduate Training and Research Productivity in the 1990s: A Look at Who PublishesPS: Political Science & Politics
Publication VersionPublished Version
AbstractThe relationship between reputational rankings of political science departments and their scholarly productivity remains a source of discussion and controversy. After the National Research Council (1995) published its ranking of 98 political science departments, Katz and Eagles (1996), Jackman and Siverson (1996), and Lowry and Silver (1996) analyzed the factors that seemingly influenced those rankings. Miller, Tien, and Peebler (1996) offered an alternate approach to ranking departments, based both upon the number of faculty (and their graduates) who published in the American Political Science Review and upon the number of citations that faculty members received. More recently, two studies have examined departmental rankings in other ways. Ballard and Mitchell (1998) assessed political science departments by evaluating the level of productivity in nine important disciplinary and subfield journals, and Garand and Graddy (1999) evaluated the impact of journal publications (and other variables) on the rankings of political science departments. In general, Miller, Tien, and Peebler found a high level of correspondence between reputation rankings and productivity, Ballard and Mitchell did not, and Garand and Graddy found that publications in “high impact” journals were important for departmental rankings.
Copyright OwnerCambridge University Press
Citation InformationJames M. McCormick and Tom W. Rice. "Graduate Training and Research Productivity in the 1990s: A Look at Who Publishes" PS: Political Science & Politics Vol. 34 Iss. 3 (2001) p. 675 - 680
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/james-mccormick/1/