Talk:European Political Science

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As far as possible I have tried to provide a neutral description of an academic journal of which there are many examples on Wikipedia. Like nearly all academic journals it is sold commercially. It is also available at no extra cost to institutional members of the ECPR (European Consortium for Political research), which is the European equivalent of the American Political Science Association. Please compare pages for ECPR and APSA as well as European Politial Science and the American Political Science Review. The only objection that might have any validity is that the article is not about European political science but about a journal called European Political Science which is about European political science.Ecpralias (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

As the reviewing administrator, and as an editor who works a good deal on the Wikipedia articles about professional journals, I consider that it is sufficiently informative to pass speedy. As for the title, I'll adjust it to European Political Science (professional magazine) or European Political Science (journal)--I need to think about which. I shortened it a little and adjusted the style to our usual format. It also needs an infobox, see Template talk:Infobox Journal.

Which brings up the main point. This is not a peer-reviewed academic research journal, but more of a professional magazine, containing news, symposia and reviews. At least at Wikipedia, we do not use the word journal for professional magazines, but this seems to be a hybrid--the nearest APSA publication seems to be PS: Political Science & Politics EPS is not comparable to American Political Science Review--the comparable journal to that is European Journal of Political Research. In the information about submissions there is no statement that the articles are peer-reviewed, so I assume they are not, but rather published by less formal editorial consultation, as customary for professional magazines. We are somewhat less inclusive of professional magazines than peer-reviewed journals, but a good case can be made for including the principle one of a profession. DGG (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you say; however, a couple of points: not all academic journals are peer-reviewed although nowadays it is true to say that most of best international ones are; second, not all the contents of a peer-reviewed journal are themselves peer-reviewed: substantive research articles always are but review articles and book reviews frequently are not. Returning to EPS: many of the articles are sent out for peer-review and changes subsequently required; others are not and these would include reports on high-level academic symposia and the review articles of the reviews issue. It is important to note that EPS is much more than a professional magazine containing news and views of passing interest to political scientists. For example, the top downloaded article in 2007 was an article of about 4,000 words from the 2005 issue devoted to the intellectual career of Giovanni Sartori, one of the world's leading political scientists. In the same issue began a debate on the global ranking of political science departments which continues to the present and which focuses on methodological issues concerning the validity of such rankings. Many articles since 2005 have dealt with the difference between American and European approaches in political science. The comparison with APSA's PS - Political Science and Politics is partially valid; and, like EPS, it is published as an academic journal by an academic publisher. However, one difference is that a quarter of EPS is devoted to substantial book reviews of the sort that would belong in any international political science journal. The table of contents from the latest reviews issue is available here. Clicking on 'Abstract' will reveal the book(s) under review Ecpralias (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

certainly about peer review--its not a yes or no matter, and I've explained just about what you've said above many times to people here. As for EPS, we have to go by the statements or lack of them on the journal or other sources not personal knowledge. ZIf you're connected with it, maybe there can be a clearer statement. DGG (talk) 04:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)