We analyzed citation data from Africa-related articles in the top 20 political science journals between 1956 and 2021 and used a citation network approach to evaluate the extent to which African, Africa-based, and female scholars have influence in the African politics subfield and how this influence has evolved over time. This is the first study to use a comprehensive dataset and citation network approach to quantitatively assess the degree of underrepresentation in the leading political science research on Africa. Following Metz and Jäckle (Reference Metz and Jäckle2017), we chose to focus on journal articles because they are widely regarded as the discipline’s most influential research and because of less comprehensive digitally available information on chapters and monographs. We acknowledge that our focus is biased toward North American and European institutions, which provide greater incentives for scholars to publish in top journals compared to African universities.
This is the first study to use a comprehensive dataset and citation network approach to quantitatively assess the degree of underrepresentation in the leading political science research on Africa.
In political science, several bibliometric analyses examined publication patterns by gender (Dion, Sumner, and Mitchell Reference Dion, Sumner and Mitchell2018; Maliniak, Powers, and Walter Reference Maliniak, Powers and Walter2013; Teele and Thelen Reference Teele and Thelen2017; Williams et al. Reference Williams, Bates, Jenkins, Luke and Rogers2015); however, none examined patterns by country of origin or location. Outside of political science, there are a few bibliometric analyses pertaining to whether an author is based in the Global South (Amarante et al. Reference Amarante, Burger, Chelwa, Cockburn, Kassouf, McKay and Zurbrigg2022; Chelwa Reference Chelwa2021; Medie and Kang Reference Medie and Kang2018) or in Africa in particular (Briggs and Weathers Reference Briggs and Weathers2016). Our study also is informed by many narrative theoretical articles that address inequities in knowledge production within African studies (Akinro Reference Akinro2019; Ayoade Reference Ayoade1980; Irele Reference Irele1991; Mama Reference Mama2007; Mkandawire Reference Mkandawire2015; Olukoshi Reference Olukoshi2006; Pailey Reference Pailey2016; Zeleza Reference Zeleza2002, Reference Zeleza2009; Zimbalist Reference Zimbalist2020).
This study is the first to analyze citation patterns between Africa- and non-Africa-based authors and between African and non-African authors in political science and in African politics in particular. It sheds light on important trends in preeminent political science journals since African politics emerged as a distinct subfield in the 1950s. Our analysis reveals that, starting at a low baseline, African and Africa-based scholars experienced a brief period of increased influence between 2000 and 2010. However, their representation and centrality in citation networks—based on the top political science journals—have declined sharply in recent years. This contrasts with the steady upward trend for female scholars, from which African and Africa-based female scholars have been excluded. We posit two key factors that are associated with the declining influence of African and Africa-based scholars since around 2010: (1) the rising competitiveness of the top political science journals, which increasingly favor particular quantitative methods that require significant financial resources and training—resources that are more accessible to scholars at well-funded North American and European institutions; and (2) increasing rates of mutual citation among non-African and non-Africa-based scholars in top political science journals, with African and Africa-based scholars also more likely to cite their non-African peers. We also provide suggestive evidence that Africa-based scholars writing about political science topics may be moving away from top generalist political science outlets toward African studies journals with higher acceptance rates because these scholars have become increasingly likely to publish—and gain recognition—in the field of African studies. Furthermore, we emphasize that many Africa-based scholars tend to publish their research in books and edited volumes for various reasons, including lower barriers to publication, longer word limits, and potential royalties and prestige. As a result, our findings are based solely on the trends observed in leading political science journals, which are consistent with the bibliometric analyses cited previously.
The article proposes straightforward remedies that journals could implement—in addition to expanding promising initiatives—to reverse this negative trend and create a more diverse and equitable system of knowledge production that centers African voices. Regretfully, this article is the product of two non-African authors who are based primarily outside of Africa. We believe the study would have been more compelling if it were driven by an African or Africa-based researcher.
We are not suggesting that only African or Africa-based scholars should address African politics. This would preclude us and many other dedicated academics from conducting research on the topic and generating valuable insights. Instead, this article demonstrates the extent of the problem using a network-based approach and motivates actions to address the power asymmetries in the system of scholarly production, which disadvantage Africa-based scholars. Given the nature of these asymmetries, we believe our findings and their implications may apply to a wide range of subfields across political science journals.
DATA AND METHODS
Drawing on a large-scale open dataset of scientific publications (i.e., SciSciNet) (Lin et al. Reference Lin, Yin, Liu and Wang2023), we selected all papers published since 1956 in the top 20 political science journals (according to Google Scholar)Footnote 1 with “Africa” or an African country (including North Africa) in the title with at least one citation (Zimbalist and Omodei Reference Zimbalist and Omodei2026). These “seed” articles served as the initial reference point for mapping influence within the discipline. From this initial dataset, we expanded it by including every article in the full SciSciNet dataset that cites any of the seed articles—regardless of the journal in which the citing article was published. This step ensured that we captured the broader network of scholarly influence extending beyond the top journals.
Using this expanded dataset, we constructed an author-level citation network of all of the authors of the seed articles. In this network, each node represented an individual author. A directed edge was drawn from Author A to Author B if Author A cited at least one publication by Author B in any of their articles. The direction of the edge thus indicates the flow of citation (i.e., from citer to cited). The weight of each edge corresponds to the total number of times that Author A cited Author B across all articles in the dataset. This weighting allowed the network to reflect not only on whether a citation relationship exists but also its intensity.
After constructing the network, we calculated an authority score for each author following the approach of Maliniak, Powers, and Walter (Reference Maliniak, Powers and Walter2013, 907), which is based on Kleinberg’s (Reference Kleinberg1999) Hyperlink-Induced Topic Search algorithm. In this framework, authors’ authority scores measure how often they were cited by “hub” authors—that is, those who themselves had cited many authoritative authors. This measure captured the recursive nature of influence within the citation network and provided a more nuanced indicator of scholarly prominence than only raw citation counts. The online appendix includes detailed information on our coding procedures for authors’ location, nationality, and gender.
RESULTS
Based on sample composition, this section first describes the simple trends of the overall sample of 923 seed papers with 903 associated authors since 1956. However, the total number of authors is limited before 1980. Figure 1 presents the trends for the percentage of African authors, Africa-based authors, and African Africa-based authors in the overall sample. The figure reveals a clear pattern: the percentages for all three groups increased slowly from around 1975 until 1990, then experienced rapid growth until around 2000. Unfortunately, this period of increasing representation (measured by the percentage of the sample) was followed by a sharp decline since the early to mid-2000s and continuing until 2021. In contrast, online appendix figure A.1 shows that the percentage of women has been increasing steadily since 1975.
Percentage of African, Africa-Based, and African Africa-Based Authors Over Time
We now discuss the contemporary inequalities of the author-citation network and authority scores in 2021. The descriptive statistics demonstrate significant underrepresentation of African and Africa-based authors in the top 5% (table 1) and top 10% (see online appendix table A.1) of authors, based on authority scores. Among the top 5% most central authors in the network (i.e., 45 of 903), African authors accounted for only 9% of the most central authors despite making up 17% of the overall sample (see table 1). Similarly, Africa-based authors constituted 4% of the most central authors despite making up 13% of the overall sample. In contrast, 38% were female despite only making up only 32% of the total dataset. Although women are overrepresented in the top 5% (with an increasing share over time), the same pattern did not hold when we examined intersectionality with either African origin or location in 2021. That is, African and Africa-based women each made up only 3% of the total sample, but there were no African or Africa-based women in the top 5% (see table 1).
Top 5% Authors by Authority Score
Note: Percentages in parentheses show the proportion in the top 5% relative to the proportion of total authors.
Now we ask: Is the situation getting better or worse? This discussion examines the intertemporal patterns of the top 5% of authors based on their authority score (see table 1).Footnote 2 Because samples before 1980 were too small for meaningful analysis, we began in 1980 when the number of authors in the dataset was 82. In 1980, there was one Africa-based author, the Swedish political scientist Goran Hyden, but no Africans in the top 5%. Hyden is something of a rarity, having spent much of the 1960s and 1970s at universities in Uganda, Kenya, and Tanzania before moving to Dartmouth College in New Hampshire in 1980. In 1990, there were no African or Africa-based authors in the top 5%. In 2000, there were two African authors in the top 5%: Adebayo Adedeji based in Nigeria and Michael Bratton (cofounder of Afrobarometer) based in the United States. They made up 17% of the top 5% although Africans made up 27% of the total sample (see table 1).
Whereas 1980 to 2000 was marked by stark underrepresentation of African and Africa-based scholars, the period from 2000 to 2010 was characterized by strong growth and overrepresentation in the top 5%. Notably, between 2000 and 2010, the proportion of African authors in the top 5% increased by 10 percentage points to 27% and the proportion of Africa-based authors in the top 5% increased from 8% in 2000 to 27%. At this time, the corresponding overall percentages of Africans and Africa-based scholars was 23% and 17%, respectively, which means that these groups were overrepresented in the top 5% in 2010. Moreover, African Africa-based authors also were overrepresented, accounting for 23% of the top 5% despite making up 14% of the total sample.
However, from 2010 to 2021, the overall proportions of African Africa-based authors as well as their proportions in the top 5% decreased sharply. In 2021, of the top 45 authors, only four Africans were in the top 5% and only one African was based in Africa. Moreover, the proportion of Africans and Africa-based authors in the top 5% was significantly lower than their overall proportion in the dataset. Whereas Africans and Africa-based authors have experienced declining representation since around 2010, this runs counter to the trend for female authors; they have experienced continued growth in representation in the top 5% and in the overall sample (see table 1 and online appendix figure A.1). However, although female authors in general are gaining ground, female African and Africa-based authors are not. They made up only 2% to 3% of the overall sample, and only one author had been among the top 5% (i.e., Amanda Gouws in South Africa in 2010); there have been no authors in the top 5% since then.Footnote 3
These trends based on the authority score track the descriptive trends in our overall sample, with the expected lag time, given that citations take time to accumulate. As noted previously, we observed a sharp increase in the percentage of African and Africa-based authors in the overall sample between 1990 and 2000 (see figure 1). Unsurprisingly, this growth appears in the increasing authority scores between 2000 and 2010 (see table 1). However, as the overall percentages began to decrease in the early- to mid-2000s, we observed a corresponding decrease in authority scores since 2010.
A visual analysis of the networks provides additional insight into understanding these trends. Node size was made proportional to an author’s authority score, and the names of non-African authors based outside of Africa were shown if they were in the top 5% during that period. A lower threshold on the authority score was applied to African and Africa-based authors (i.e., 25% of the threshold applied to non-African authors based outside of Africa) so that more of their names became visible. Moreover, node positions in the networks remained the same for all periods and were determined with a spring layout of the 1956–2021 network using the Fruchterman and Reingold (Reference Fruchterman and Reingold1991) force-directed algorithm.
Consistent with research by Zeleza (Reference Zeleza2002) and Olukoshi (Reference Olukoshi2004), in the first two networks (i.e., 1956–1980 and 1956–1990), we observed the dominance of non-Africans based outside of Africa who, with a few exceptions, primarily were men (see figures 2 and 3). During the two periods, there were almost exclusively gray nodes, with the sole exception of Goran Hyden, who was based in several African countries for decades.
Author Citation Network 1956–1980
Author Citation Network 1956–1990
In the 1956–2000 network, many more nodes appear, including African Africa-based authors such as Nigerian Adebayo Adedeji (figure 4). However, the most significant visual changes occurred between 2000 and 2010: the 1956–2010 network showed a marked increase in both the number and prominence of African and Africa-based authors (represented by the colored dots). These nodes reflect influential scholars whose articles on democracy and development, published in the 1990s, had grown in impact by this time (figure 5).
Author Citation Network 1956–2000
Author Citation Network 1956–2010
The most central nodes among African and Africa-based scholars were Robert Mattes (an American then based in South Africa), Amanda Gouws (a South African based in South Africa), Emmanuel Gyimah-Boadi (a Ghanaian based in Ghana), and Michael Bratton (born in Southern Rhodesia and later based in the United States). Mattes, Gyimah-Boadi, and Bratton cofounded the Afrobarometer survey in 1999. During the late 1990s and early 2000s, Gyimah-Boadi authored several influential pieces on democracy in Ghana, which were published in the non-peer-reviewed Journal of Democracy. In addition to these scholars, many other Africans and Africa-based authors became more influential during this period (see other colored nodes). Several of them worked together including Mattes and Gouws, as well as Hennie Kotzé, whose articles about democracy in post-apartheid South Africa gained increasing recognition. Notably, the majority of these articles appeared in either the Journal of Democracy or Democratization.
This group of authors contrasts with the publishing patterns of a new group of influential non-African scholars based outside of Africa, whose highly cited articles were published in more competitive outlets including American Political Science Review (APSR), American Journal of Political Science (AJPS), British Journal of Political Science (BJPS), Comparative Political Studies (CPS), and Political Behavior. It is important to note that the percentages of articles in our dataset published in top outlets such as APSR and CPS were declining over time whereas those of Democratization and Journal of Democracy were increasing substantially (see online appendix table A.2).
The likely effect of these contrasting publication patterns on authors’ influence became even more evident in the 1956–2021 network, in which we observed many non-African researchers who entered and gained prominence in the network (figure 6). Notably, several of these scholars collaborated with influential non-African, non-Africa-based authors from the 2010 network and primarily used experimental and other quantitative methods. For example, we observed the rise of non-African scholars publishing highly cited articles in APSR, AJPS, and BJPS using experimental and quasi-experimental designs. In contrast, the only new African names in the top 5% were two authors (i.e., H. Kwasi Prempeh and Stephen N. Ndegwa) who were well connected to influential scholars such as Emmanuel Gyimah-Boadi and institutions such as the World Bank, respectively.
Author Citation Network 1956–2021
These changes in the networks—along with the trends observed in figure 1 and the statistics presented in table 1—suggest that publishing on Africa in the elite group of the top 20 political science journals has become increasingly difficult in the recent period, especially for African and Africa-based scholars. Thus, our first proposed correlated factor that could explain in part the declining influence of African and Africa-based scholars is the growing selectivity of these journals and the privileging of quantitative methods that require substantial resources and training. This provides a clear structural advantage to researchers based outside of the African continent.
Existing studies found that elite political science journals have shown a strong and growing preference for quantitative methods research since 1992, especially APSR, AJPS, BJPS, and JOP (Li Reference Li2019; Maliniak et al. Reference Maliniak, Oakes, Peterson and Tierney2011). Moreover, in the more recent period, Garand and Harman (Reference Garand and Harman2021) identified increasing desk-rejection rates at APSR, BJPS, and CPS, including a fourfold increase at APSR from 2010 to 2019 and a substantial increase in its desk-rejection probability for articles with a coauthor from an African country.
These trends also were reflected in our analysis of small random samples from our own dataset.Footnote 4 We found that Africans based in Africa were far less likely to publish articles using quantitative methods of any type—and far more likely to publish either qualitative or theoretical articles—compared to non-Africans based outside of Africa (consistent with Briggs and Weathers Reference Briggs and Weathers2016). Since 2010, we have observed an increasing percentage of quantitative articles—especially those that use experimental and quasi-experimental methods—among non-Africans based outside of the continent. To be sure, we believe that the recent surge in experimental and quasi-experimental research in political science has generated important insights. However, if this type of research continues to be conducted primarily by North American and European scholars who have greater access to resources, the most influential work on African politics will become increasingly driven by scholars based outside of Africa.
Analyzing the changing citation rates of non-African scholars in the top political science journals—our second posited correlated factor that may explain our findings—reinforces these conclusions. We computed the percentage of non-African and non-Africa-based authors who cited more non-African and non-Africa-based authors than would be expected by chance (i.e., when the percentage of non-African and non-Africa-based authors that they cite was higher than the percentage of such authors in the dataset in that period). Table 2 shows that the trend was moving in a positive direction from 1990 to 2010, reaching a low point (although still high) of 64% in the 1956–2010 period, which coincided with the increasing influence of African and Africa-based authors during that time frame. However, by 2021, the situation had worsened again, with more than 78% of non-African and non-Africa-based authors citing more non-African and non-Africa-based authors than expected by chance, which reflects the declining influence of African and Africa-based authors in the most recent period. Similarly, among African and Africa-based authors, we observed positive downward movement from 1990 to 2010, with only 42% citing non-African and non-Africa-based authors at higher rates than would be expected by chance. However, this trend again reversed by 2021, with the percentage increasing to 55%.
Percentages of Authors Who Cite More Non-African and Non-Africa-Based Authors Than Expected by Chance
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Citations in published research in leading peer-reviewed journals are critical for advancing scholarly knowledge and for shaping the political science discipline’s trajectory. At the individual level, greater recognition can lead to improved prospects for raising funding, salary increases, and career advancement through promotion and tenure. However, these benefits are distributed unevenly across most academic disciplines, and African politics is no exception.
Our study developed a citation network based on 923 unique journal articles published from 1956 to 2021 in the top 20 political science journals with a focus on Africa. Whereas gender gaps appear to have declined within African politics, inequalities related to African identity and location have worsened. Although there are many Africans and Africa-based scholars who are publishing in the top 20 political science journals, they do not garner the same influence from their published research relative to their non-African and non-Africa-based counterparts, especially since 2010. We contend that this trend is likely associated with the growing competitiveness of top political science journals in the past 10 to 15 years—especially those in the upper echelon of the top 20 that increasingly prioritizes quantitative methods that necessitate substantial financial resources and technical training.
Whereas gender gaps appear to have declined within African politics, inequalities related to African identity and location have worsened.
This is an obvious structural inequality because it is primarily scholars at well-funded North American and European institutions who have access to these resources. A second key correlate of the recent trend since 2010 is the increasing rate of citations in the top 20 political science journals of non-Africans and non-Africa-based scholars who dominate the field. At the same time, we also present suggestive evidence that Africa-based scholars writing about political science topics may be shifting away from top generalist political science journals and toward African studies outlets, where acceptance rates are higher (see online appendix table A.3). It also is possible that these scholars are increasingly likely to publish their research in books, edited volumes, working papers, and policy reports.
In light of our findings, we suggest simple, practical actions to reverse the recent trend in leading political science journals. One remedy is to reform the current review system—which is largely dominated by non-Africans based outside of Africa—that provides strong incentives and often explicit encouragement to cite the most prominent theorists in African politics (Medie and Kang Reference Medie and Kang2018). This dynamic results in more citations for well-known non-African scholars based in North America and Europe while neglecting lesser-known African and Africa-based researchers. To address this, journal editors could invite Africa-based scholars to serve as editors, submit their manuscripts, and adopt guidelines that explicitly encourage authors—and prompt reviewers as well—to engage with and cite African and Africa-based researchers (Medie and Kang Reference Medie and Kang2018; Pailey Reference Pailey2016). In parallel, more journals could exclude bibliographies from article word limits to enable authors to cite a more diverse set of writers, extending beyond the most canonical (and often Western) scholars who frequently are suggested by reviewers. Although we are not advocating for a quota, we argue that scholarship would be enriched through wider engagement with researchers situated outside of the top political science journals. An additional step toward inclusivity is for top political science journals to return to their more methodologically diverse publishing standards as observed in the 1990s and early 2000s, when they were more likely to publish theoretical and qualitative research addressing particular themes and country cases.
Another strategy to address the underrepresentation of African scholars in top political science journals is to admit more graduate students from African countries into leading doctoral programs in North America and Europe. Whereas we acknowledge the important concern of “brain drain,” we also recognize the positive impact that these opportunities can have on individual scholars and their capacity to effect change within Western academia—even if they choose to remain abroad. Moreover, many graduates return to Africa, where they use their newly acquired skills and networks to conduct research in local think tanks and universities, as well as to train and mentor future African scholars.
Despite the worrying recent trend of growing inequality, there is increasing momentum across many academic disciplines to make research more equitable and inclusive. Several journals in development and public health have launched promising pilot initiatives to support collaborations with researchers from low- and middle-income countries. These initiatives align with several African scholars who have advocated for academic exchanges and collaboration between African and non-African researchers (Medie and Kang Reference Medie and Kang2018; Olukoshi Reference Olukoshi2006). Political science journals could follow this model. Additionally, in line with suggestions from Medie and Kang (Reference Medie and Kang2018), professional organizations could follow the example of the Evidence in Governance and Politics network and provide targeted grant programs for research involving or led by researchers from low- and middle-income countries. Furthermore, the American Political Science Association Annual Meeting provides grants and hosts small groups, panels, and short conferences aimed at helping early-career scholars from lower- to middle-income countries to develop their research for publication and expand their scholarly networks (Medie and Kang Reference Medie and Kang2018). Although far more needs to be done, scaling up these promising initiatives—alongside the journal reforms proposed—could reverse the troubling trajectory of the past 15 years in preeminent political science journals and build a more pluralistic and inclusive subfield that is meaningfully shaped by African and Africa-based perspectives.
Although far more needs to be done, scaling up these promising initiatives—with the journal reforms proposed herein—could reverse the troubling trajectory of the past 15 years in preeminent political science journals and build a more pluralistic and inclusive subfield that is meaningfully shaped by African and Africa-based perspectives.
SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL
To view supplementary material for this article, please visit http://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096526102029.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank Siphiwe Dube, Nadège Compaoré, Michael Mutava, Kudakwashe Vanyoro, Anthony Kaziboni, Clive Glaser, Sally Matthews, and Carlos Shenga for their suggestions and insights. Some of the research and writing were completed under the auspices of a Vienna University of Economics and Business International Research Fellow grant.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Research documentation and data that support the findings of this study are openly available at the PS: Political Science & Politics Harvard Dataverse at https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/CYBR7L.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The authors declare that there are no ethical issues or conflicts of interest in this research.
Open access
