Let's say the top journal in PS is given a weight of 1 in the tenure or promotion. What would be the weight for ISQ.
How much weight is given to a publication in ISQ
(25 posts) (3 voices)-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
.0731454748924. Approximately.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Probably varies by department, but assuming this is an IR person going up for tenure where IO is #1 and ISQ is #2 or #3, then I'd say 1 ISQ = .75 IO article. I'm saying you would definitely rather have 2 ISQ articles than one IO when you come up for tenure. ISQ is a very good journal. In fact, other than IO, this is arguably the best journal you could publish in for folks in your subfield. It is ranked #2 in the sub-field and everybody gets it in the mail because it is the "free" journal that comes with ISA membership.
From point of view of a Comparativist 1 ISQ = .75 CP or CPS.
From point of view of an Americanist 1 ISQ = .4 APSR. Yeah. I think you would rather have one APSR than 2 ISQ from Americanist perspective.
You could always just look at the impact scores and then the math would change, but that was not your question.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I'm sorry, but these kinds of questions are usually a waste of time, as the answer is department dependent. The best you're going to get is ^: ISQ is a top-5 IR journal, but not as prestigious as IO. And trust me, your tenure committee is going to be doing a bit more than trying to figure out if 2 ISQ articles are intrinsically more valuable than 1 IO article.
Posted 3 years ago # -
The key is whether your work appears in highly visible outlets that are known for their high quality/selectiveness. ISQ and IO are the most visible journals in IR and a bit beyond since some comparativists will pay attention to those journals. While IO may have a smidge more status, in most people's eyes, ISQ is about as good of a hit. These days both exceed World Politics, although WP's comeback may reduce that gap. So, these things do change. When I started out, it was WP and IO and then ISQ.
Departmental standards are important but not the only thing. Even if you are happy where you are and don't want to move, external reviewers do play a role at many places, so you want your record to play to the discipline's elusive standards. Trying to do some obscure math to figure out if 2 IO pieces equal 3 ISQ is perhaps a waste of time. In most places if you have 2 IO or 3 ISQ or 1 of each, you are probably in good shape as long as you have other stuff--a book, other articles, whatever. At a top ten institution, you are likely to need an idiosyncratic mix of top 3 press books and top journals in poli sci and your field (APSR, AJPS, JOP, ISQ, IO, etc).
the key again is visibility--being published in more visible outlets is always preferable--it gets you cited and all the rest: fortune and glory, kid, fortune and glory.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Excellent replies from others. I have a related question. Do you think an AER is worth the same as an APSR in the tenure and promotion.
Posted 3 years ago # -
^Amen. Remember, reputation in the field matters. A crappy article in IO will always be worth less than a crappy article in ISQ, but a crappy article in IO is always worth more than a decent article that nobody ever reads or cites because it's hidden in some third-rate journal. That's why, all things being equal, you should submit to top journals first and work your way down the food chain (your mileage will vary with respect to the methods and subject of the manuscript, of course).
Posted 3 years ago # -
^^No. If you're in an econ department, it is worth more. If you're in a political science department, it's worth less.
This has been another edition of "simple answers to easy questions."
Posted 3 years ago # -
I am going to argue that ISQ is better than IO now. 1) everyone gets it for free (visibility), not true with IO. 2) the leadership of Thompson and Rasler has been excellent. They are quick (6 weeks) and make fair decisions. I suspect both submissions and rejections will go up when data is released. 3) ISQ includes comparative so it covers two fields, if not three with PT getting some hits. 4) ISQ seeks to be more representative of the field in terms of methods and approaches. 5) ISQ does not do special issues or publish research notes (I could be wrong about this but in my memory I have not seen this). There have been some excellent IO special issues but I am thinking of some in the 90s, not 00s.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Some good points, but ISQ does both special issues and research notes.
Posted 3 years ago # -
^^ I agree that ISQ has gotten better while IO has gotten worse.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I think both journals have their pros and cons. ISQ does seem a bit broader, in that it publishes everything from midwestern quant articles to post-structuralist work, but a lot of people think that ISQ doesn't do a good job of covering work that falls in-between those poles. Certainly you'll rarely get a manuscript back from (or review a manuscript for) ISQ that will be dismissed by one or more reviewers because it is a theory piece or because it is almost entirely quantitative. But that was true in the UNT era as well. IO seems to have a lot of political baggage that goes with being the "top" journal in the field--kind of like the APSR is for all of political science.
But here's a rule of thumb: if you need to argue that "X journal is better than Y journal now," chances are that Y is still more prestigious :-).
Posted 3 years ago # -
^ Bingo. IO is still #1.
Posted 3 years ago # -
IO also, very occasionally, publishes PT pieces, though this is more common in ISQ
Posted 3 years ago # -
ISQ is so much more interesting. IO makes me sleepy.
Posted 3 years ago # -
"Some good points, but ISQ does both special issues and research notes. "
ISQ no longer does notes and when was the last special issue? join us in the year 2010 man! lol
Posted 3 years ago # -
moreover, IO is about who you know not what you know...
Posted 3 years ago # -
IO has been on the decline for some time now. The work tends to be of a narrow focus now. Seems like ISQ> IO and IS.
Posted 3 years ago # -
^ IS isn't even in the same league
Posted 3 years ago # -
This is an empirical question and the TRIP survey answers it definitively. IO is #1 by a large margin. The question is how much is something "worth" and that is based on the reputation of the journals. We have a very clear measure in the TRIP survey. IO is #1 and ISQ/IS are distant 2nd and 3rd.
Posted 3 years ago # -
all hail the TRIP survey. bow before its infallible wisdom.
Posted 3 years ago # -
about 3 pounds.
Posted 3 years ago # -
ISQ is a very fine journal, and an author publishing a paper in ISQ gets quite a bit of credit in most departments. According to the most recent Garand-Giles et al. journal rankings paper in PS, ISQ is ranked in the top 10 and has an impact score that is about 70% that of the APSR. ISQ is clearly one of the top journals for an international relations scholar. IO is ranked somewhere between ISQ and the APSR, but I've heard the same talk among some IR folks that IO may be trending downward. At present, though, IO is ranked above ISQ.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Of note ^^^^, ISQ hasn't done research notes in years. There were efforts to do a special issue while it was housed at UNT, but some of the contributions were not up to snuff and the effort was nixed once the manuscripts were nearly all rejected after review.
Posted 3 years ago # -
ISQ is a good hit. IO is so boring it makes me want to pull my hair out. If you people are serious about the .75IO business, then I just don't know what to say. Maybe if econ is the autistic field, we are the OCD field?
Posted 3 years ago #