Following the ongoing debates on (1) editorial bias and the degree of internationalization of journals in different fields and (2) internalization of (European) political science, this paper aims to descriptively analyze the composition of editorial teams and editorial boards of all 187 political science journals indexed in the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI). Although there are significant differences between individual journals, the analysis revealed an overwhelming Anglo-American dominance in both editorial teams (with an average of 60.6 per cent) and editorial boards (58.6 per cent) across the entire list of journals, reproducing the patterns of dominance and dependence. In addition to the global level, the analysis focuses more closely on the European environment and confirms the conclusions of some previous studies that the Central and Eastern European (CEE) region remains largely (semi-) peripheral in European and global political science. Based on previous research, we can infer that a higher level of editorial diversity would lead to increased diversity in published content, encompassing a wider range of methods, topics, theories, and cases. In conclusion, the study suggests (1) weakening possible biases by building more diversified editorial teams and boards and (2) continuing to analyze specific manifestations of bias in political science journals.

In authoritarian contexts, the organization of academic knowledge and scholarly practices is often shaped by both formal policies and subtle social mechanisms, including disciplinary norms, faculty networks, and informal negotiation strategies. Within this framework, autocratic governments frequently restructure social and political science education, designating it as a ‘sensitive field’ to prioritize ideologically sanctioned topics and embedding regime-aligned imperatives within academic institutions. This paper examines Iran as a case study to explore the effects of state-led Islamization policies (of humanities and social science) on political science curricula, research orientations, and institutional practices. Drawing on a systematic analysis of undergraduate curricula and academic research agendas, with a focus on published papers in Iranian political science journals, the paper demonstrates that these transformations reduce disciplinary diversity, marginalize comparative and interdisciplinary approaches, and constrain the role of political science as a site of civic and intellectual engagement. Rather than a neutral adaptation of academic fields, the Islamization of political science in Iran represents a deliberate strategy of knowledge control aimed at aligning education with authoritarian governance. The findings highlight how such interventions narrow the possibilities for academic inquiry and reshape the societal functions of higher education, contributing to broader debates on authoritarianism, curriculum design, and the global politics of knowledge production.

Rates of judicial dissent vary dramatically between Southern Africa’s appeal courts, even though judges frequently circulate between their benches. This variation cannot be explained by the ideological distance between judges or by their judicial philosophies. Differing institutional arrangements provide better but still incomplete explanations. These arrangements reflect dramatic transformations in the region’s judicial cultures. Analysing these diverging cultures illuminates why some forms of dissent have proved particularly contentious, and why styles of adjudication favouring dissent in some areas of the law have aroused particular hostility. There is thus no straightforward ‘norm’ that promotes or undermines judicial consensus in the region.

This paper examines Health System Resilience (HSR) through a political science lens, arguing that the capacity of health systems to become resilient is shaped not only by technical capabilities and available resources but also by the political theories underpinning health systems and health policy. While HSR has gained prominence in health research as a concept, its integration with political theories remains limited – particularly within political science literature. Drawing on a scoping review, the paper finds that political dimensions – such as governance and leadership, institutional path dependency, and power dynamics – are rarely and unevenly addressed in the literature. Most sources adopt a fragmented view of policy and politics, infrequently identifying the Political Determinants of Health (PDoH) systematically or analysing them through robust political theory. As a result, resilience is often depoliticised and treated as a managerial issue rather than a contested political process. In light of these findings, the paper proposes new opportunities to scrutinise how HSR is shaped by the interplay of actors, ideas, and institutions. In doing so, it contributes to developing a political science of health that fosters stronger interdisciplinary engagement. The paper calls on political scientists to engage more proactively with public health scholarship to support politically informed and more effective resilience strategies.

Political science concerns topics that can be highly relevant for politicians. Political science research and education offer insights that can help incumbents win elections or govern better. At the same time, the discipline provides knowledge that can be used to challenge politicians in office, for example, on how to organise mass protests or effective opposition parties. Therefore, politicians in power may have mixed feelings about the existence of political science departments. Some will encourage their establishment, while others – perhaps especially autocrats – may try to contain their presence or control their location. We study the existence and placement of political science units at universities across the world and assess the extent to which these features vary with regime type. Using large-N data on university subdivisions, we examine cross-national variation in existence and within-country variation in the location of political science departments. We find surprisingly few substantial differences along the democracy–autocracy continuum: Political science units, on average, are no more frequent in democracies. Across regime types, political science units are about equally likely to be located at public (versus private) institutions, and similarly likely to be placed at universities closer to the capital.

The relationship between political science and sociolegal scholarship is, at it’s best, a constitutive one. This essay argues that the two fields of study have taken turns illuminating important aspects of law, politics, and social life – responding, in turn, to the theoretical and empirical findings of each other. Law and Society scholarship, in particular, presses political scientists to rethink their foundational assumptions about the rule of law, the power of institutions, and the meaning of judicial decision-making and processes. Some of this rethinking may result, as we posited on the panel which gave rise to this work, in a fruitful “undisciplining” of the field, and re-imagining of the political.

A lingering feature of academic publications in political science is persistent gender gaps. In the aggregate, men are dominant in the discipline, and on the individual level, men publish and submit more articles and books than women do. In this article, we explore one way that journals may potentially reduce the gender gap in publishing. Focusing on the composition of editorial boards, we hypothesize that a higher share of female editorial board members, particularly if such representation is coupled with a high share of female editors, can increase women’s presence as journal authors. We test this argument using data from 120 political science journals. Through quantitative analyses, we find a relatively strong association between a high presence of female board members and female authors, especially in situations with a high percentage of female editors.

This article traces the development of the state politics subfield within political science. Using three sources of evidence – the publication of state politics articles in the American Political Science Review, American Journal of Political Science, and Journal of Politics; the corpus of articles in State Politics & Policy Quarterly (SPPQ); and the programs of the State Politics and Policy Conference (SPPC) – we examine how the field has developed over the past six decades. We argue that the founding of SPPQ and SPPC helped formalize the subfield. But, as these subfield outlets entered the scene, the proportion of state politics research in leading generalist outlets began to decline even as the number of articles remains relatively constant. Additionally, the substantive focus of the subfield has endured, anchored in topics such as elections, legislatures, and public opinion, even as areas like judicial politics and gender have gained prominence and studies of political parties have declined. Finally, we document the rise of coauthorship in state politics research, reflecting the collaborative nature of the subfield.

This article introduces the symposium titled “Political science perspectives on the emerging eco-social policies, politics and polity in the European Union” that brings together the eco-social debate with mainstream theories and concepts from the political science discipline with the aim of encouraging a mutually and reinforcing theoretical and empirical exchange between the two fields. Before presenting the other contributions to the symposium, this article unpacks what “eco-social” is by presenting the existing definitions followed by a bottom-up identification of the “eco-social” essence retrieved through a systematic review of this literature. Furthermore, it takes stock and identifies areas of deficiency of the eco-social literature along the three dimensions of policy, politics, and polity while also outlining potential contributions of political science’s approaches to this field.

Bibliometric measures, as provided by the Social Science Citation Index of the Institute for Scientific Information, certainly represent a useful tool for librarians and researchers. However, although librarian scientists have shown that the use of journal impact factors to evaluate the performance of academics is misleading, some authors continue to promote bibliometric metrics to assess the productivity of academic departments and even the entire European academic community. Taking an ambitious ‘global ranking of political science departments’ as a reference, this article questions both the reliability and desirability of bibliometric performance indicators. The article concludes that the development of a panopticon-like audit culture in universities will not enhance their quality, but rather undermine the classical idea and purpose of the university.

This article maps the state of political science since the turn of the millennium. It begins by reviewing the influential description of the discipline in Robert Goodin’s (2011 [2009]) introduction to the Oxford Handbook of Political Science. It then introduces an alternative approach, based on citation indexes, to generate a comparative list of influential authors for the same time period. After comparing Goodin’s list with our own, we use the same method to generate a list of the most influential books and articles of the 2009–2018 period and describe how the discipline has changed over the intervening decade. Two of the more interesting findings include the continued importance of books (in addition to articles) in political science citations and an apparent trend towards increased pluralism in recent years.