This article introduces the Debate on editing and publishing (in) Political Science and International Relations journals in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). The Debate brings together editors of PoliSci and IR journals published in four CEE countries to examine the practice of publishing (in) these disciplines and explore the diverse strategies journals, and their editors employ to navigate the semiperipheral context of CEE. Going beyond structuralist accounts of semiperipheral inferiority, we introduce CEE journals as institutions endowed with agency, self-reflection and responsibility towards their academic communities. The Debate discusses if and in which sense these journals try to become (limited) innovators, how they are bound by different conditions stemming from the national or regional contexts, how they work with or challenge them and which opportunities they exploit to advance their goals.

The concluding article of this collection (Debate) summarises the preceding contributions and puts forward a scalar perspective on the position of CEE Political Science and International Relations journals. It draws attention to the interactions and tensions between international, national and local scales and discusses how journals navigate their positions on these scales. The article is structured around three questions that concern the purpose of publishing Political Science and International Relations journals in CEE, the relations of the journals with the disciplinary core and the role played by national science evaluation systems. In conclusion, the article highlights the split identity that many CEE journals have to assume due to their position on both national and international scales and the tensions stemming from the different and conflicting demands of these two scales.