| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
087774
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Boulder, Westview Press, 1988.
|
| Description |
xvi, 147p.
|
| Series |
Transforming American politics
|
| Standard Number |
0813306779
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 031487 | 338.973/HIL 031487 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
116473
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Within the medical and physical sciences journals evidence suggests that problems of authorship ethics and journal management bedevil the editors of these journals. Although anecdotal evidence suggests that similar problems persist in political science, the extent of these problems within political science is not well established. Here we report the results of a survey of political science journal editors' perceptions of ethical and managerial issues associated with their journals. We find that unlike ethical publication concerns in the clinical and natural sciences fields, these issues are not of significant concern among our sample. Ethical problems are of low concern and editors report high levels of confidence to address these problems. Managerial problems, such as the adequacy of reviewer pools, are of higher concern to our sample.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
187717
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Considerable research finds that male political scientists publish more research on average than do female political scientists. Yet the reasons for this difference are not entirely clear. Those findings may also overestimate the relative productivity of men because they do not account for the longer time that more men have been in the profession and thus have been publishing longer than women. For a prominent survey dataset of political scientists, we demonstrate notable cohort differences in the research productivity of both men and women across time. Our results also indicate that the overall greater productivity of men results in part from senior women scholars not generally enjoying the same benefits of long tenure on their research output as men do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
184520
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
We demonstrate how men and women political scientists in PhD-granting departments perceive the professional climates there. We find remarkable differences in how men and women perceive the “cultural” climates of their departments, such as the degree to which it is sexist, but not in how they perceive strictly collegial aspects of climate. We also demonstrate that these patterns characterize the perceptions of men and women at both junior and senior ranks. Contrary to some past research, we also find that climate perceptions do not have a general effect on faculty research productivity. Further, perceptions of high departmental sexism by women scholars does not degrade their research productivity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
179429
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Considerable research assesses research success in political science. Yet this work has not considered widespread findings that scholars can follow various career research paths that complicate how we envision scholarly success. Further, we have no systematic information on these career paths in any scientific discipline. I present an empirically validated research career-path typology for political scientists who began their career in a research institution. The typology demonstrates that many scholars follow paths different from the most conventional expectations, and research success by measures of publications and citations is associated with only some of these paths. Thus, existing research on aggregate publications and citations likely addresses only a subset of the career paths revealed in this article. Understanding research activities in our profession requires consideration of the various career paths, their motivation, and their place in our research community.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
181077
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Considerable work assesses research productivity in political science. Yet, the latter work has not explicated how research careers can differ across time and individuals and neither has it considered such careers in teaching institutions. This article presents an empirically validated typology for research career paths for political scientists who began their career in a teaching institution. The typology demonstrates that many scholars follow paths different from the most conventional expectations, and research “success” by measures of publications and citations is associated with only some of those paths. Thus, existing research on aggregate publications and citations likely addresses only a subset of the career paths described here. Understanding research activities in our profession requires accounting for various career paths, their motivations, and their place in our research community.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
171282
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
A growing body of research investigates the factors that enhance the research productivity and creativity of political scientists. This work provides a foundation for future research, but it has not addressed some of the most promising causal hypotheses in the general scientific literature on this topic. This article explicates the latter hypotheses, a typology of scientific career paths that distinguishes how scientific careers vary over time with respect to creative ambitions and achievements, and a research agenda based on the preceding components for investigation of the publication success of political scientists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
134802
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Political science is falling behind a broad movement in the United States that seeks to reform the teaching of scientific literacy in undergraduate education. Indeed, political science is far behind that movement because the discipline does not have a collective commitment to science education at the undergraduate level. This article discusses prominent efforts in this reform movement and assesses the state of science education in our discipline. The authors propose an agenda for action on this issue in political science as well as fundamental educational benchmarks for undergraduate political science literacy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|