what do we read? - italianpoliticalscience.files.wordpress.com · 2014/08/05 · litical science...

What do we read? Italian political scientists and academic journals†

Marcello Carammia*

Academic journals are central to the professional activity of scholars from any research field. They are host to up-to-date scientific research, generally passed through peer-review selection processes. Scholars rely on academic journals both to develop and update their knowledge on general or specific subjects, and to disseminate the findings of their own research. In the continuous trend toward the professionalisation of academic activi-ties, scholarly journals also represent one of the main factors whereby the work of aca-demics is evaluated.

Understanding the relationship between a scientific community and the journals of reference to their own discipline can thus elucidate several aspects of that community. This exercise can be especially interesting for the community of Italian political scien-tists. In fact, while a number of studies investigates the institutionalisation of Italian po-litical science (e.g. Morlino 1989, Capano and Tronconi 2005) and/or the attitudes of Italian political scientists toward publishing in international journals (Plumper and Ra-daelli 2004, Tronconi 2008, Capano and Verzichelli 2010), no systematic research so far has been made about the reading habits of the Italian political science community.

This article presents the first results of a survey about the relation of Italian political scientists with scholarly journals. Based on a questionnaire circulated recently between members of the Italian Political Science Association (SISP), the survey replicates similar research done in the US (Giles and Wright 1975) and then replicated in the US (Giles et al 1989, Garand and Giles 2003), Canada and the UK (Norris and Crewe 1993, Garand et al. 2009, McLean et al. 2009), and France (Grossman 2010). The article illustrates some findings about a) what journals Italian political scientists read regularly, and b) what opinion they have of those journals. In so doing, the article derives some “rankings” of political science journals based on how much familiar readers are with them, as well as on their quality as perceived by readers. The aim, however, is not to provide an alternative journal ranking to other already established, but rather to shed light on the reading habits of Italian political scientists.

Italian Political Science, No. 5, Autumn 2010, 11-31

* Marcello Carammia received a PhD in Political Science from the University of Siena and is currently a post doctoral fellow in Political Science at the University of Catania. Contact: [email protected].‡ The author would like to thank Emiliano Grossman for providing the French version of the question-naire; and Fulvio Attinà, Giliberto Capano, Luigi Curini, Francesca Longo, Stefania Panebianco and Filippo Tronconi for useful suggestions on the questionnaire and/or on earlier drafts of this article.

© 2010, Italian Political Science. Articles available for download at http://www.italianpoliticalscience.org

mailto:[email protected]


http://www.italianpoliticalscience.org

http://www.italianpoliticalscience.org

1. The survey

The questionnaire2 has been sent by e-mail to 382 members of the SISP in the period July-August 2010. The number of valid responses was 106 (62 before a reminder was sent), that makes for 27,75% of the population surveyed3. The sample of respondents seems relatively well representative in terms of professional status (see figures A1-A2 in Annex A)4. It is more difficult to assess how representative the sample is in terms of re-search interests of the respondents, given the lack of similar information about the popu-lation; however, figure A3 in Annex A indicates at least that most political science sub-fields are well represented in the sample.

The questionnaire contained several questions about personal and professional infor-mation (including age, sex, highest degree obtained, areas and methodology of research, professional position); about the personal publication record in Italian and international journals; and about the journals read regularly or otherwise recommended to students. The questionnaire also contained two lists of, respectively, Italian and international politi-cal science journals that the respondent was asked to evaluate on a scale ranging from 1 to 10. In the remaining of this article, some descriptive findings will be illustrated about two of the questions included in the questionnaire.

2. What we read

Question C3 in the questionnaire asked respondents to indicate up to five journals that they “read regularly, or otherwise consider[ed] more relevant in [their own] research area”. The respondents could write down the name of up to five journals. Table 1 lists those journals that received at least eight mentions.5 Almost half of the respondents in-cluded the Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica (RISP) in the list of five more relevant and/or regularly read journals. While this finding indicates that the RISP has gained the role of the most widespread source of information for Italian political scientists, the table also shows a high level of interest towards international journals. One respondent out of four put the European Journal of Political Research in the list, and one out of five included the American Political Science Review (APSR). Taken together, the ‘top-three’ journals in the list indicate a widespread interest toward political research published by the official jour-nals of, respectively, the Italian Political Science Association, the European Consortium of Political Research, and the American Political Science Association. This seems to be indicative of a fairly high level of openness to geographic and substantive scientific diver-sity.


12

2 The questionnaire is included in the annex (Annex B - Questionnaire). While it is as similar as possible to the questionnaires used for the studies replicated here, the Italian translation is, specifically, very much inspired by the French version.3 This is not far from the response rate of similar surveys made elsewhere, ranging between 31 and 33% (McLean et al. 2009: 21).4 This is notably the case for full professors and associate professors (respectively, 18% and 17% in the sam-ple and 17% and 14% in the population). Less so for assistant professors that are overrepresented in the sample (31%, against 20% in the population) to the detriment of “others”, a big category which includes PhD students, post-docs, and all those scholars that are not “structured” within the Italian academia.5 The threshold of eight mentions is arbitrary. The table does not take into account the order of mentions, i.e. whether a journal was mentioned as the first or the fifth one in the list.

The top-three journals in the list are ‘generalist’ journals, in that they publish research from virtually all sub-fields of political science. The question, however, asked respondents to indicate those journals that they read regularly, or are otherwise relevant in their own research area. If, on the one side, the wording of the question lends more relevance to the presence and position of generalist journals, on the other hand it obviously implies a ro-bust presence of ‘specialised’ journals in the table. This is actually the case for most of the remaining journals listed – virtually all, with the exception of the Italian Quaderni di Sci-enza Politica (QUASP) and Polis, the latter however characterised by a strong empirical imprinting. The research areas represented in table 1 are comparative politics (Compara-tive Political Studies, West European Politics, Comparative Politics, indicated together by 35,8% of the respondents); European Union studies (Journal of European Public Policy, Journal of Common Market Studies, European Union Politics, 30%); public policy (Rivista Italiana di Politiche Pubbliche [RIPP] and Journal of European Public Policy, 27,35%); international relations (International Organization and International Studies Quarterly, 20%); and party politics (with the homonymous journal mentioned by a 15% of the re-spondents)6.

Summing up, table 1 shows: a) a relatively high penetration of generalist journals in the reading habitudes of Italian political scientists, with the RISP standing out as the most widely cited journal; b) an important presence of subfield journals related to com-parative politics, EU studies, public policy, international relations, and political parties; c) an important presence of Italian political science journals, with RIPP and QUASP featur-ing within the top-ten positions; and d) a substantive openness to international journals.

The latter finding is especially remarkable: there can be many reasons why Italian po-litical scientists have a low score of publication in international journals (Plumper and Radaelli 2004, Tronconi 2008, Capano and Verzichelli 2010) but, based on the responses to the survey, the level of familiarity with international reviews does not seem an explana-tion. This finding is even more manifest in comparison to the ‘cousin’ French political science community, the only non-English-speaking political science community sur-veyed so far: while 4 out of 16 journals listed in table 1 are Italian, a similar table in Grossman (2010: 578) shows that on a list of 15 journals only 3 are not written in French7.

Some notes of cautiousness to this positive view are due, however. First, there might be a problem of expected ‘social desirability’, pushing respondents to overstate their familiarity with international journals. Second, it would be worth analysing how the subsample of re-spondents scores in terms of international publications. This would help to understand whether an auto-selection effect biased the research, making a survey about the reading habitudes of political scientists more appealing to more ‘internationalised’ scholars.

Carammia, What do we read? Italian political scientists and academic journals

13

6 Whether and how a journal is included in the list – and even more its position therein – has been likely affected by the distribution of the area of specialisation of respondents. This can be ascertained, as a sepa-rate question asked respondents to indicate up to three areas of focus for their research. Some Illustrative findings about the relationship between field of research and journals read are illustrated in table A1 in Annex A, which disaggregates answers based on the areas of research declared by respondents.7 This does not imply, of course, that the French political science community is more insulated than the Italian one with this respect. French-speaking reviews are much more numerous than Italian political sci-ence reviews; and their quality may perhaps reduce the incentives to read international journals. However, It is evident that, in comparison to the French political science community, Italian political scientists dis-play a relatively higher level of openness to international journals.

Table 1. Journals read regularly and/or considered more relevant in own field of research.

Journal N %

Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica 50 472

European Journal of Political Research 27 255

American Political Science Review 22 207

Comparative Political Studies 16 151

Party Politics 16 151

Rivista Italiana di Politiche Pubbliche 15 141

International Organization 14 132

Journal of European Public Policy 14 132

West European Politics 13 123

Quaderni di Scienza Politica 11 104

European Journal of International Relations 10 94

Journal of Common Market studies 10 94

Polis 9 85

Comparative Politics 9 85

European Union Politics 8 75

International Studies Quarterly 8 75

3. What we think of what we read

Questions D1 and E1 presented respondents with two lists of, respectively, seven Italian and forty four international journals, and asked them to assign an evaluation (ranging from 1 to 10) to those journals within the lists that they were familiar with. Though the list of journals presented to the respondents has been partly modified, such questions replicate those asked in earlier research (e.g. Giles and Wright 1975, Garand and Giles 2003, Norris and Crewe 1993, Grossman 2010). Answers to this kind of questions have been used to generate ‘subjective’ rankings of political science journals. The ranking of political journals is an established exercise, serving both heuristic and administrative pur-poses. The most conventional ranking of journals8 is based on the ‘objective’ citational approach, which relies on the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Impact Score based on the citations a journal receives for each article published during a given time-period. The reputational approach, in turn, is based on ‘expert surveys’ conducted on (rep-resentative samples of) members of the discipline, asked explicitly to rate scientific jour-nals. Though both approaches have positive and negative sides (Giles and Garand 2007), their combination is likely to provide the most reliable measures of the impact of scien-tific journals.

Before moving to the illustrations of some findings derived from the evaluations as-signed by respondents to Italian and international journals, it must be stressed that the


14

8 Though not free from critiques, e.g. Adam (2002).

aim is not to provide a reliable ranking of journals. This is due to several reasons. First, this goal would require an in-depth sophisticated analysis that falls beyond the scope of this essentially descriptive article. Second, it should be stressed that “the surveys of the reputation of journals only tell us about the opinions of colleagues. There is no necessary association between subjective measures of their reputation and objective measures (if such are possible) of their quality” (Norris and Crewe 1993: 11).

Table 2 summarises results about both Italian and international journals. The next-to-last column shows a straightforward measure: the mean evaluation given to each journal by the respondents. As can be easily seen, however, journals in table 2 are not ranked by the average ‘grade’ they received. Based on that measure, the top five positions would be occupied by International Organization, the European Journal of Political Research, Ameri-can Political Science Review, Comparative Political Studies, and the American Journal of Po-litical Science. Yet, while relatively easy to be interpreted, observing mean evaluations has its shortcomings. In particular, it pushes high (or low) in the rank those journals that re-ceive very high (or very low) evaluations by a limited number of respondents9. To overcome this bias, Garand (1990) developed an index – that he called ‘impact’ – that takes into account both the number of evaluations that a journal receives and the mean evaluation given by respondents. Synthetically:

Impact = quality + (quality * familiarity)

where quality is the mean evaluation of the journal, and familiarity is the proportion of respondents that evaluated the journal, on the whole number of respondents. Note that table 2 also shows a column for relative impact, where all impact scores are divided by 15,464, that is the impact score of the top journal in the list. Relative impact is more eas-ily interpreted, as it is a proportion of the impact of the top journal.

Table 2 ranks journals based on their impact scores10. Even a cursory look at the first positions in the table confirms that the sample surveyed assigns very high relevance to international journals: twelve out of the fifteen journals with the highest impact are international, the exceptions being RISP, Stato e Mercato, and RIPP. The APSR holds the highest impact score, shortly followed by the RISP with a relative impact of 0,969 (i.e., 97% of the APSR). The RISP is the only Italian journal in the top-10, which lists six ‘generalist’ journals, three devoted to comparative politics, and one to international rela-tions. Stato e Mercato and the RIPP are ranked respectively 11th and 14th – fairly high positions, even more so the RIPP which is the first-ranked public policy journal in the list. The latter seems to point to a relatively little community of public policy scholars which is diverse in terms of research interests – with scholars scattering their reading habitudes through different international sectoral journals – yet shares attention toward


15

9 This is the case, for instance, of International Organization, that journal received very high evaluations (µ = 8,364), but just by 52% of the respondents.10 A few notations about the distribution of the scores. First, no journal receives a mean evaluation lower than 6, while the highest evaluation is 8,364. As a consequence, the average evaluation of all journals taken together is very high: 7,211. Second, even within this relatively narrow range, the distribution is negatively skewed (-0,211), which means that there are more journals that receive evaluations higher than the mean than journals receiving a lower evaluation (see the distribution histogram in figure A5 in Annex A). Third, the impact index is relatively more closely correlated with familiarity (Pearson’s r = 0,926) than with qual-ity (r = 0,809), which obviously means that it is slightly more affected by scores on the former measure.

the Italian journal of reference for their sub-discipline11.This ranking can be fruitfully cross-examined with that shown in table 1 above. If we

compare the first 16 positions in table 2 with those listed in table 1, we can see that they share ten journals: the APSR, RISP, EJPR, Comparative Political Studies, Comparative Politics, West European Politics, International Organization, Party Politics, RIPP, and the Journal of Common Market Studies. Note that the absence of a high-ranking journal from table 2 indicates that, while respondents assign this journal a very high relevance (in terms of both quality and familiarity) when they find it within a precompiled list, they do not mention it among the most frequently read (and/or more relevant in their field of research) when they are asked to compile the list themselves – which is most clearly the case of the AJPS and the BJPS, respectively third and fifth in the impact ranking – add-ing one more caveat to the ranking based on impact scores.

Table 2. Journals ranked by ‘impact’.

Journal Relative Impact Impact Familiarity Mean StandDev

American Political Science Review 1000 15464 895 8160 1595

Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica 969 14982 981 7563 1493

American Journal of Political Science 963 14892 867 7978 1549

European Journal of Political Research 951 14700 800 8167 1378

British Journal of Political Science 892 13797 752 7873 1213

Comparative Political Studies 877 13556 686 8042 1305

Comparative Politics 873 13500 705 7919 1214

West European Politics 833 12885 638 7866 1476

International Organization 824 12745 524 8364 1568

Annual Review of Political Science 813 12570 590 7903 1399

Stato e Mercato 811 12540 695 7397 1507

Party Politics 791 12231 571 7783 1648

World Politics 790 12212 533 7964 1513

Rivista Italiana di Politiche Pubbliche 785 12133 743 6962 1607

Journal of Common Market Studies 762 11778 514 7778 1745

Political Studies 744 11498 571 7317 1479

Journal of Democracy 742 11470 505 7623 1522

European Union Politics 740 11445 571 7283 1728

Comparative European Politics 736 11385 505 7566 1294

Polis 730 11286 695 6658 1677

Quaderni di Scienza Politica 724 11198 810 6188 1665


16

11 As mentioned when illustrating table 1 (see footnote 6), both familiarity and the subjective evaluation assigned to most journals are likely to be affected by the areas of research of single respondents. Table A2 in Annex A shows mean evaluations aggregated by areas of specialization. On this note, however, it is worth stressing that earlier research found that the methodological approach adopted by respondents has an even higher impact than research areas on subjective evaluations of journals (e.g. Garand et al. 2009).

Journal Relative Impact Impact Familiarity Mean StandDev

International Political Science Review 724 11196 581 7082 1636

Journal of European Public Policy 723 11181 448 7723 1651

Electoral Studies 709 10959 505 7283 1854

International Studies Quarterly 708 10948 410 7767 1525

Journal of Conflict Resolution 699 10807 457 7417 1686

South European Society and Politics 690 10667 524 7000 1491

Government and Opposition 685 10596 533 6911 1632

E. Journal of International Relations 683 10565 448 7298 1817

Journal of Politics 680 10514 419 7409 1452

Political Science Quarterly 680 10514 419 7409 1484

International Affairs 665 10286 429 7200 1561

Governance 663 10260 410 7279 1830

Journal of Public Policy 653 10100 400 7214 1718

Scandinavian Political Studies 649 10032 429 7022 1485

Journal of Peace Research 647 9999 362 7342 1547

Journal of Theoretical Politics 641 9908 381 7175 1738

Journal of European Integration 616 9530 371 6949 1432

Political Research Quarterly 608 9401 295 7258 1527

Public Administration 595 9200 314 7000 1820

Journal of Legislative Studies 587 9072 324 6853 1811

Revue Française de Science Politique 579 8952 343 6667 1690

Political Analysis 573 8865 238 7160 1724

Partecipazione e conflitto 573 8857 476 6000 2382

Quaderni Costituzionali 573 8857 429 6200 1878

Public Administration Review 568 8781 248 7038 2107

Journal of European Social Policy 556 8600 229 7000 1745

Journal of Social Policy 550 8498 229 6917 1932

French Politics 543 8403 314 6394 1713

Politische Vierteljiahresschrift 528 8162 219 6696 1550

Revista Espanola de Ciencia Polìtica 518 8008 257 6370 1597

Review of Internat. Political Economy 516 7972 210 6591 1894

German Politics 515 7962 257 6333 1641

Public Choice 500 7726 238 6240 1899

J. of Policy Analysis and Management 466 7202 190 6050 2038

Finally, a quick comparison of these results with those obtained by similar studies shows interesting results. Figure 1 plots relative impact scores derived from our data with those received by the same journals in a comparative analysis of Canada, UK and US


17

(McLean et al. 2009)12. The relationship is relatively important (r2 = 0,302), and is not far from that between the UK and the US (r2 = 0,322, see McLean et al. 2009: 33). This is quite an interesting finding if one only takes into account the very obvious fact that the UK and US communities are not separated by a linguistic barrier, a finding that corrobo-rates the general impression of fairly internationalised reading habits of Italian political scientists.

Figure 1. Scatterplot of relative impact scores – Italy compared to Canada, UK, US.

The black dotted line (the diagonal of perfect correlation), and the red line (the re-gression curve) help to clarify some characters of the relation between the two distribu-tions. First, some journals are very close to the diagonal: that is, respondents from the Italian community assign them an impact very close to average values derived from the non-Italian sample. This list includes the APSR (which is ranked first in both samples), the AJPS, BJPS, World Politics, Electoral Studies, and the Journal of Conflict Resolution. Sec-ond, only a few journals are ranked higher by the ‘international’ sample than by Italian respondents. These include Political Analysis and the outlier Journal of Politics, which has a much higher impact in the international sample (a finding similar to that encountered in the analysis of the French case, see Grossman 2010). There are a couple of opposite out-liers, notably the EJPR and, most expectedly, the RISP whose powerful impact in the Italian community is disproportionate with respect to the international sample. Finally, most of the dots are located in a cluster which includes journals that are ranked system-atically (but in many cases not too much) higher by Italian respondents.


18

12 Note that the two lists are partly different. Accordingly, the scatterplot only shows the 39 journals com-mon to both lists.

Conclusions

This article presented the preliminary findings of a survey about the reading habitudes of Italian political scientists. The results point to a perhaps unexpectedly high degree of in-ternationalisation of the Italian community of political scientists in terms of the sources they rely on to shape their knowledge, balanced by a very good relation with most Italian journals – with the RIPP and especially the RISP ‘competing’ with the most established journals in the discipline.

The article, however, opens more questions than it answers. First, a deeper analysis is needed to make sense of the gap between the apparently internationalised reading habits of Italian political scientists on the one hand, and their lower score in terms of publica-tion in international journals on the other. Second, the Italian political science commu-nity has been analysed here in aggregated terms, as if it was a homogeneous community. Rather than an assumption, however, this should be the object of empirical analysis – whose outcome is likely to highlight the existence of both unifying and divisive elements, as the illustrative figures in the annex show. On a related note, a number of interesting questions can be addressed by means of a more in-depth analysis of the data: both in general terms, related to the demographic, career and attitudinal characters of Italian po-litical scientists; and in specific terms, related to how such variables affect the relationship of Italian political scientists with scholarly journals. Finally, this survey replicates similar analyses conducted in other countries: most interesting results are likely to come out from the systematic comparison of the findings.

Annex 1Tables and f igures

Figure A1. Professional status - Respondents


19

Figure A2. Professional status - Population

Source: own elaboration based on responses to the questionnaire plus data drawn from the official directory of Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca (http://cercauniversita.cineca.it/php5/docenti/cerca.php, visited on September 6, 2010).Note that the category “other/unknown” includes: a) Italian scholars that are not affiliated to the area of political science of the MIUR, i.e. scholars from other disciplinary areas; b) PhD students and scholars without permanent post, including of course “cultori” and post-docs; c) scholars working outside Italy, whose professional position was not known.

Figure A3. Research interests - Respondents

Note: respondents were allowed up to three responses, hence categories must not be read as mutually exclusive. The categories “Electoral Studies” and “Social Movements” were not in-cluded in the list of answers, and have been created after some respondents declared so in the open-ended part of the question. Accordingly, these categories may be underestimated.


20

http://cercauniversita.cineca.it/php5/docenti/cerca.php




Figure A4. Age - Respondents

Table A1. Journals read regularly and/or considered more relevant in own field of research, aggregated by research areas.

Political Sociology 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th TotRISP 3 3 4 4 1 15

Comparative Politics 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th TotRISP 11 1 6 1 4 23EJPR 4 10 3 2 2 21APSR 9 3 2 3 2 19Party Pol 4 1 4 5 14WEP 3 6 2 1 1 13CPS 2 4 4 3 13Comparative Politics 1 1 2 2 2 8JEPP 2 2 3 7

International Relations 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th TotInternational Organization 3 5 4 2 14EJIR 2 3 3 2 10RISP 3 1 1 2 2 9ISQ 1 1 1 2 3 8JCMS 4 2 1 7


21

European Union 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th TotRISP 3 4 3 4 14JEPP 1 6 3 3 13EJIR 3 6 3 12JCMS 6 1 3 1 11APSR 5 2 2 1 10IO 1 4 3 1 9CPS 1 3 1 2 1 8EUP 1 1 4 2 8

Public Policy 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th TotRISP 7 2 3 2 3 17RIPP 3 5 3 1 12JEPP 1 6 2 1 10EJPR 3 2 1 1 7

Political Institutions 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th TotAPSR 7 1 2 10EJPR 1 5 1 3 10RISP 1 2 3 2 8

Political Parties 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th TotRISP 7 2 5 1 3 18Party Pol 4 1 3 4 2 14EJPR 3 3 1 2 1 10APSR 3 2 3 1 9CPS 2 2 2 1 7

Political Theory 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th TotRISP 3 3

Local Policy 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th TotRISP 7 1 2 1 2 13RIPP 2 3 1 2 1 9

Public Opinion 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th TotEJPR 2 1 1 4

Social Movements 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th TotPartecipazione e conflitto

2 1 3


22

Figure A5. Distribution histogram of journals’ mean evaluations

(continues)


23


24

Jour

nal

Mea

nSt

andD

evPo

litic

al

Soci

olog

yCo

mpa

rativ

e Po

litics

Inte

rnat

. Re

latio

nsEU

Pol

itic

sPo

litic

al

Inst

itutio

nsPo

litic

al

Part

ies

Polit

ical

Th

eory

Publ

ic

Polic

yLo

cal

Polic

yPu

blic

O

pini

onSo

cial

Mov

emen

tsO

ther

IO83

6415

6871

2579

1788

6286

9080

0077

6985

0086

6773

3365

0060

0090

00

EJPR

8167

1378

8000

8102

7588

8438

8737

8269

7750

8185

7750

8000

8000

7667

APSR

8160

1595

7850

7843

8240

8382

8381

8308

7429

8414

8000

7833

7250

8250

CPS

8042

1305

7125

8022

8077

8269

8059

8280

8000

8458

7923

6333

7333

8000

AJPS

7978

1549

7667

7633

8348

8233

7850

8080

7571

8207

7833

7800

7000

9000

WP

7964

1513

7500

7781

8000

8125

7909

8857

8000

7929

7000

8000

7000

8333

CP79

1912

1476

6778

0080

6381

5477

3780

0075

0080

8379

2365

0077

5085

00An

nRev

PS79

0313

9980

5677

3581

8878

7077

5082

1172

5081

5882

5080

0070

0080

00BJ

PS78

7312

1377

3776

7476

3281

3881

6781

3075

0082

6179

2380

0066

6785

00W

EP78

6614

7678

5779

0271

6779

6477

0682

2773

3382

1780

0067

5083

3390

00Pa

rtyP

ol77

8316

4875

7180

2560

0079

4777

3386

6782

5076

0078

3366

6775

00.

JCM

S77

7817

4560

0073

7979

5082

5777

2775

8370

0087

8982

5055

0060

0080

00IS

Q77

6715

2570

0075

3381

5477

1476

0071

1170

0079

0075

0070

0080

0070

00JE

PP77

2316

5164

0074

3581

4381

4876

0066

6766

6785

5676

6750

0080

0080

00Jo

fDem

7623

1522

7000

7765

7462

7526

6929

8100

7750

7692

7833

5000

8500

7250

CEP

7566

1294

7273

7133

8000

7640

7000

7750

8000

7765

7778

7500

7667

8000

Risp

7563

1493

7957

7226

7367

7541

7238

7808

6857

7788

7947

7667

8250

7500

JCon

flRes

7417

1686

6600

6864

8125

7591

6875

6889

6600

7300

7500

6667

6500

7500

JoP

7409

1452

7273

7607

7000

7188

7182

8000

7667

7571

7286

7667

6500

8000

PSQ

uart

7409

1484

6800

7407

7429

7222

7000

8000

6400

7667

7500

7667

6500

8000

Tabl

e A

2. Jo

urna

ls’ m

ean

eval

uatio

n, b

y ag

greg

ated

spe

cial

isat

ions

of t

he r

espo

nden

ts.

Annex B – QuestionnaireQuestionario sulle riviste di scienza politica

Garanzia della privacy: Desideriamo informarLa che il D.lgs, n. 196 del 30 Giugno 2003 (“Codice in materia di protezione dei dati personali”) prevede la tutela delle persone e di altri soggetti rispetto al trattamento dei dati personali. Secondo la normativa indicata, tale trattamento sarà improntato ai principi di correttezza, liceità e trasparenza e di tutela della Sua riservatezza e dei Suoi diritti.

Ai sensi dell’articolo 13 del D.lgs. n. 196/2003, pertanto, La informiamo che i dati comunicati verranno trattati esclusivamente per finalità statistiche e di ricerca scientifica. Per ogni richiesta di chiarimento può contattare:

Marcello CarammiaDipartimento di Studi Politici – Università di CataniaTel. 0957347254E-mail: [email protected]

A. INFORMAZIONI PERSONALI

A1. Anno di nascita:Scriva nel riquadro

A2. Sesso:Clicchi sul quadrato corrispondente alla sua risposta Donna │ Uomo

A3. Titolo universitarioSelezioni una sola risposta cliccando sul quadrato corrispondente o specificando in “altro” Laurea Anno: Università: Master Anno: Università: Dottorato Anno: Università: Altro (specificare) Anno: Università:

A4. In quale disciplina ha conseguito il dottorato di ricerca?Selezioni una sola risposta cliccando sul quadrato corrispondente o specificando in “altro” Scienza politica Sociologia Storia DirittoAltro

A5. In quale delle aree tra quelle elencate di seguito si collocano le sue ricerche?Selezioni massimo tre risposte cliccando sul quadrato corrispondente, e/o specificando in “altro” Sociologia politica Politica Comparata Relazioni Internazionali Politica europea/Studi europei Istituzioni politiche Partiti politici Teoria politica Politiche pubbliche Politica localeAltro:


25



A6. Quale è l’approccio metodologico prevalente nel suo lavoro?Clicchi sul quadrato corrispondente e/o specifichi in “altro” Teoria pura Qualitativo Quantitativo MistoAltro o specificazioni:

B. INFORMAZIONI PROFESSIONALI

B1. Quale è la sua posizione professionale?Selezioni una sola risposta cliccando sul quadrato corrispondente o specificando in “altro” Dottorando Cultore della materia o ricercatore privo di contratto Assegnista Docente a contratto Ricercatore strutturato Professore associato Professore ordinarioAltro

B2. Quali titoli di studio in scienza politica è possibile conseguire presso l’istituzione a cui è affiliato?Selezioni tutte le risposte valide cliccando sul quadrato corrispondente o specificando in “altro” Nessuna Laurea Master DottoratoAltro:

B3. Quanti politologi lavorano presso la sua istituzione?

Selezioni cliccando sui quadrati corrispondenti

C. PUBBLICAZIONI

C1. Quella che considera la sua migliore pubblicazione scientifica è:Selezioni una sola risposta cliccando sul quadrato corrispondente o specificando in “altro” Un articolo di rivista Nome rivista: Un capitolo in opera collettanea Casa editrice: Un libro (monografia) Casa editrice: Altro:


26

Professori Ordinari, Professori Associati, Ricercatori Assegnisti e Borsisti 1 o 2

Tra 3 e 8 Tra 9 e 14 Tra 15 e 20 Più di 20

1 o 2 Tra 3 e 8

Tra 9 e 14 Tra 15 e 20 Più di 20

C2. Immagini di aver appena concluso un progetto di ricerca, da cui ha ricavato un articolo scientifico. Indichi la prima rivista a cui sottoporrebbe il dattiloscritto. Indichi successivamente la seconda e la terza rivista alle quali sottoporrebbe il dattiloscritto, in caso di rifiuto da parte della prima.Scriva nei riquadri1. 2. 3.

C3. Indichi le riviste che legge regolarmente, o che comunque ritiene più rilevanti nel suo settore di spe-cializzazioneScriva nei riquadri1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

C4. Se diverse da quelle indicate in risposta alla domanda precedente, indichi di seguito i nomi delle riviste che raccomanda ai suoi studentiScriva nei riquadri1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

D. RIVISTE ITALIANE

D1. L’elenco seguente comprende alcune riviste di scienza politica in lingua italiana. Attribuisca una valu-tazione alle riviste che conosce, in funzione della qualità degli articoli che vi si pubblicano. Attribuisca a ciascuna rivista un voto da 0 (scarsa) a 10 (eccellente).

Indichi la sua valutazione cliccando sul quadrato corrispondente


27

RIVISTA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10(Scarsa) (Eccellente)

Partecipazione e Conflitto

Polis

Quaderni Costituzionali

Quaderni di Scienza Politica

Rivista Italiana di Politiche Pubbliche

Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica

Stato e Mercato

E. RIVISTE INTERNAZIONALI

E1. Riviste internazionali. Proceda come per l’elenco delle riviste italiane, valutando le riviste che conosce e lasciando le altre senza risposta.Indichi la sua valutazione cliccando sul quadrato corrispondente

RIVISTA1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

(Scarsa) (Eccellente)American Journal of Political Science

American Political Science Review

Annual Review of Political Science

British Journal of Political Science

Comparative European Politics

Comparative Political Studies

Comparative Politics

Electoral Studies

European Journal of International Relations

European Journal of Political Research

European Union Politics

French Politics

German Politics

Governance

Government and Opposition

International Affairs

International Organization

International Political Science Review

International Studies Quarterly

Journal of Common Market Studies

Journal of Conflict Resolution

Journal of Democracy

Journal of European Integration

Journal of European Public Policy

Journal of European Social Policy

Journal of Legislative Studies

Journal of Peace Research

Journal of Policy Analysis and Management

Journal of Politics

Journal of Public Policy


28

Journal of Social Policy

Journal of Theoretical Politics

Party Politics

Political Analysis

Political Research Quarterly

Political Science Quarterly

Political Studies

Politische Vierteljahresschrift

Public Administration

Public Administration Review

Public Choice

Revista de Ciencia Politica

Revue Française de Science Politique

Review of International Political Economy

Scandinavian Political Studies

South European Society and Politics

West European Politics

World Politics

F. ALTRE RIVISTE

F1. I due elenchi che le abbiamo sottoposto sono certamente incompleti. Ha la possibilità di valutare di seguito le riviste (italiane o non italiane) che ritiene siano state trascurate.Scriva il nome della rivista nel campo appropriato e indichi la sua valutazione cliccando sul relativo quadrato


29

NOME RIVISTA1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

(Scarsa) (Eccellente)

G. PUBBLICAZIONI SU RIVISTE

G1. Indichi fino a cinque nomi di riviste italiane su cui ha pubblicato o ha articoli in corso di pubblicazi-one:1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

G2. Indichi fino a cinque nomi di riviste internazionali su cui ha pubblicato o ha articoli in corso di pubbli-cazione:1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

FINE DEL QUESTIONARIOGrazie per il suo contributo. Può inserire di seguito eventuali commenti.

References

Adam, D. 2002. “Citation analysis: The counting house.” Nature 415(6873): 726–729.Capano, G., and F. Tronconi. 2005. “Political Science in Italian Universities: Peaceful

Survival?” European Political Science 4(2): 151-163.Capano, G., and L. Verzichelli. 2010. “Good But Not Enough: Recent Developments of

Political Science in Italy.” European Political Science 9(1): 102–116.Garand, J. C, and M. W Giles. 2003. “Journals in the Discipline: A Report on a New

Survey of American Political Scientists.” PS: Political Science and Politics 36(02): 293–308.

Garand, J. C., M.W. Giles, A. Blais and I. McLean. 2009. “Political Science Journals in Comparative Perspective: Evaluating Scholarly Journals in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom.” PS: Political Science & Politics 42(04): 695-717.

Giles, M.W., and J.C. Garand. 2007. “Ranking Political Science Journals: Reputational and Citational Approaches.” PS: Political Science and Politics 40(04).

Giles, M.W., F. Mizell, and D. Patterson. 1989. “Political Scientists’ Journal Evaluations Revisited.” PS: Political Science and Politics 22(3): 613-617.

Giles, M. W., and G. C. Wright. 1975. “Political Scientists’ Evaluations of Sixty-Three Journals.” PS 8(3): 254-256.

Grossman, E. 2010. “Les strategies de publication des politistes français.” Revue française de science politique 60(3): 565–585.


30

McLean, I., A. Blais, J. C. Garand and M.W. Giles, 2009. “Comparative Journal Ratings: A Survey Report.” Political Studies Review 7(1): 18–38.

Morlino, L. 1989. “Ancora un bilancio lamentevole?.”, in L. Morlino (ed.) Scienza Poli-tica, Torino: Edizioni Fondazione Agnelli, pp. 5–52.

Norris, P., and I. Crewe. 1993. “The reputation of political science journals: Pluralist and consensus views.” Political Studies 41(1): 5–23.

Plümper, T., and C. M Radaelli. 2004. “Publish or perish? Publications and citations of Italian political scientists in international political science journals, 1990–2002.” Journal of European Public Policy 11(6): 1112–1127.

Tronconi, F. 2008. “Italian political science in international journals: An update of Plüm-per and Radaelli’s “Publish or Perish”.” Italian Political Science 2(2).


31

what do we read? - italianpoliticalscience.files.wordpress.com · 2014/08/05 · litical science...

Documents