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.

A fair peer-review process is essential for the integrity of a discipline’s scholarly standards. However, underrepresentation of scholarly groups casts doubt on fairness, which currently is raising concerns about a gender bias in the peer-review process of premier scholarly journals such as the American Political Science Review (APSR). This study examines gender differences in APSR reviewing during the period 2007–2020. Our explorative analysis suggests that male reviewers privilege male authors and female reviewers privilege female authors, whereas manuscripts reviewed by both male and female reviewers indicate less gender bias. Using within-manuscript variation to address confounding effects, we then show that manuscripts reviewed by both male and female reviewers receive a more positive evaluation by female reviewers in terms of recommendation and sentiment, but they experience a marginally longer duration. Because these effects are not specific for type of authorship, we recommend that invitations to review should reflect mixed compositions of peers, which also may avoid overburdening an underrepresented group with review workload.

This article assesses whether a gender gap in political science, identified in the international literature, also is present in the context of Italian political science. The literature has mostly centered on the comparison of female publication rates in international journals with the academic workforce in the United States, but this raises an issue of data comparability. As an alternative strategy to avoid comparability biases, this study focuses on the analysis of a single national case: Italy. The article evaluates to what extent the “glass-ceiling” effect persists for political scientists who intend to publish their contributions. By analyzing data on articles published between 2015 and 2020 by the three major Italian political science journals, this contribution shows that (1) the proportion of published articles written by female authors is lower than that of male authors; (2) the hypothesis that the lower female proportion depends on a lower female presence in the field of political science is refuted; (3) there is little collaboration between men and women; (4) there is a correlation between the presence of female editors in scientific journals and the proportion of female-authored articles; and (5) gender differences are reflected in women’s academic career progression.

In an increasingly tight job market, the selection of an adviser has never been more important to help guide young scholars in their career development. Advisers play a critical role in students’ careers and beyond, from providing substantive help with the dissertation to sharing the norms of the discipline, helping them navigate the job market, and introducing them to potential collaborators. Yet, many graduate students do not know how to go about identifying the best adviser for them. Here, we provide some suggestions to graduate students for how best to pick a dissertation adviser and other mentors, noting some of the most important aspects of the relationship and highlighting some of the most critical elements to look for in finding an appropriate and helpful adviser.

This article focuses on disproportionate service burdens faced by women academics and faculty of color in higher education created by COVID-19 and the massive, multilocation street protests that followed George Floyd’s death. Our work aims to inform provosts, deans, directors, and other institutional actors in academia who recognize the need for documenting structural inequities and investing in high-impact, long-term solutions. Recommendations are offered to meet challenges, given the need to raise colleague awareness of disproportionate service burdens.

In recent years, scholars, journals, and professional organizations in political science have been working to improve research transparency. Although better transparency is a laudable goal, the implementation of standards for reproducibility still leaves much to be desired. This article identifies two practices that political science should adopt to improve research transparency: (1) journals must provide detailed replication guidance and run provided material; and (2) authors must begin their work with replication in mind. We focus on problems that occur when scholars provide research materials to journals for replication, and we outline best practices regarding documentation and code structure for researchers to use.

As greater shares of research and data are digitized, political scientists are increasingly confronted with questions pertaining to data security. Yet, data-management plans rarely evaluate the risks pertaining to a researcher’s data across all project phases. This article highlights distinct risks related to key phases of the research process that deserve more attention by scholars. We emphasize risks during a project’s inception and pre-data-collection phases, as well as risks associated with data publication and its afterlife. We discuss how shifts in political context and (re)newed politicization of topics can present new security risks for both the researcher and the researched communities long after a project has been completed. We provide a framework for recognizing and mitigating data risks, thereby contributing to the growing interest in data-security best practices.

This article summarizes research on the profession of community college faculty generally and data gathered from a survey of political science faculty teaching at community colleges nationwide conducted in 2018. The purpose of the article is to educate the discipline about what life is like for faculty at two-year schools and specifically how political science faculty at these schools perceive their role.

This article uses data from a 2018 survey conducted by the American Political Science Association Committee on the Status of Community Colleges in the Profession to make specific policy recommendations for how to better reach out to and incorporate political science faculty teaching at community colleges into the association.

In recent years, political scientists increasingly have used data-science tools to research political processes, positions, and behaviors. Because both domestic and international politics are grounded in oral and written texts, computerized text analysis (CTA)—typically based on natural-language processing—has become one of the most notable applications of data-science tools in political research. This article explores the promises and perils of using CTA methods in political research and, specifically, the study of international relations. We highlight fundamental analytical and methodological gaps that hinder application and review processes. Whereas we acknowledge the significant contribution of CTA to political research, we identify a dual “engagement deficit” that may distance those without prior background in data science: (1) the tendency to prioritize methodological innovation over analytical and theoretical insights; and (2) the scholarly and political costs of requiring high proficiency levels and training to comprehend, assess, and use advanced research models.