{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02319309600862999, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012944983818770227, 'mean_word_length': 5.245791245791246, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Political Scientists' Journal Evaluations Revisited

Refereed journals are a principal means of communication within the scholarly community. Accordingly, publication in refereed journals is taken as a sino quo non for success within the discipline. Tenure and promotion decisions and salary increases are influenced by the number of articles which a professor has published and the importance of the journals in their work has appeared. While more objective means have been suggested (Christenson and Sigelman, 1985), subjective judgments of the quality of journals is the most commonly employed indicator of their importance. Over a decade ago PS published a study which examined political scientists' subjective evaluations of sixty-three social science journals (Giles and Wright, 1975). Given the passage of time and the introduction of many new journals, it is appropriate to re-examine those evaluations. Of the sixty-three journals examined by Giles and Wright, fifty-six remain in print and are included in this study. An additional twenty-two journals are also examined, bringing the total to seventy-eight The additional journals allow for the representation of journals established since the earlier study (e.g., Legislative Studies Quarterly) and for greater representation of comparative journals with specific regional foci (e.g., China Quarterly and Soviet Studies). Data for the study were gathered from questionnaires mailed during the summer of 1988 to a sample of 550 polit ical scientists. This sample was drawn randomly from the faculty listed in the 1986 APSA Guide to Graduate Study. Usable questionnaires were received from 215 respondents for a return rate of approximately 40%. Respondents were asked to evaluate the journals presented alphabetically. Additional space was provided for rating journals not included on the list.