International Relations Journals Research Articles

The evolution of cyberconflict studies

Abstract In our increasingly digital world, cyberconflict poses a significant challenge to global security, prompting the emergence of an academic field dedicated to its study. Understanding the trajectory, evolution and dominant characteristics of cyberconflict studies is vital for scholars and policy-makers alike. By means of a thorough analysis of articles from the 125 top political science and International Relations journals, we illuminate the field's conceptual and methodological landscape. Our findings uncover a notable Europeanization of the field and a shift towards more rigorous methodologies, particularly experimental designs. While early research focused primarily on conceptual development and strategic topics, the contemporary field of studies exhibits a broader scope and greater diversity of scholarship. While the field has progressed beyond its nascent stages, it has yet to reach its full potential. We address several potential issues facing its growth and relevance. Firstly, there is a lack of global representation among researchers and in the incidents studied. Secondly, embracing interdisciplinary approaches is crucial for addressing newly emerging issues effectively. Thirdly, the diversification of research identities within the field of cyberconflict studies in the US and Europe must be bridged to foster collaboration and exchange of ideas. To overcome these challenges, adopting a pragmatic middle-ground approach is essential.

Measuring transparency in the social sciences: political science and international relations.

The scientific method is predicated on transparency-yet the pace at which transparent research practices are being adopted by the scientific community is slow. The replication crisis in psychology showed that published findings employing statistical inference are threatened by undetected errors, data manipulation and data falsification. To mitigate these problems and bolster research credibility, open data and preregistration practices have gained traction in the natural and social sciences. However, the extent of their adoption in different disciplines is unknown. We introduce computational procedures to identify the transparency of a research field using large-scale text analysis and machine learning classifiers. Using political science and international relations as an illustrative case, we examine 93 931 articles across the top 160 political science and international relations journals between 2010 and 2021. We find that approximately 21% of all statistical inference papers have open data and 5% of all experiments are preregistered. Despite this shortfall, the example of leading journals in the field shows that change is feasible and can be effected quickly.

Cybersecurity in Political Studies: A Scoping Review

In recent years the increasing prevalence of technology has elevated cybersecurity from being a niche focus of interest for a small group of specialised computer scientists to a macro-level concern, attracting the attention of scholars and practitioners in political science and international relations. Today governments and military bodies view aspects of cybersecurity—ranging from preparations for cyberwar (a facet of digital geopolitics) to managing responses to cyber events (a facet of strategic communications)—as critical to their national security. However, while this mounting interest among academics has led to a rise in publications in political science and international relations journals, such rapid growth also results in literature fragmentation, where many studies do not sufficiently communicate with each other, and theoretical development remains relatively limited. In this paper, by reviewing the 113 cybersecurity papers published in 53 prominent journals in political science and international relations, I aim to provide an overview of the current state of research in this domain. Overall, this study has implications for the political science and international relations fields, especially the literature on strategic communications and digital geopolitics.

Public and cultural diplomacy practices: Empirical study of foreign Consulate Generals in Bali, Indonesia

Public and cultural diplomacy are essential aspects of international relations, playing a pivotal role in shaping perceptions, building bridges between nations, and fostering mutual understanding. These practices involve the strategic communication and promotion of a country's culture, values, and policies on the global stage, with the primary objective of enhancing bilateral and multilateral relationships. Accordingly, the overarching goal of this interdisciplinary research is to analyze the practice of public and cultural diplomacy of five foreign Consulate Generals (CGs) in Bali, namely, the CG of Australia, Japan, India, the People’s Republic of China, and the Republic of Korea. This research combines the interdisciplinary concepts derived from empirical International Relations and legal studies. The first part of this study analyzes the legal basis, if any, for CGs in performing public and cultural diplomacy. To connect both disciplines, a qualitative empirical approach is used in this research as the methodology. The implementation of public and cultural diplomacy is assessed by using literature studies from International Relations journals, official websites, online news media, and official social media accounts. The results of this research proved that (i) all foreign CGs analyzed in this paper have conducted their public and cultural diplomacy practices in Bali; (ii) the practice of public diplomacy practices has covered news management, strategic communication, and relationship building aspects by utilizing digital technology such as official websites and social media accounts; and (iii) the cultural element has been highlighted by all CGs to build relations with Balinese people.

Uma nova base cienciométrica de publicações científicas em Revistas Brasileiras de Relações Internacionais (1997-2021)

Abstract In this article, we present a new dataset covering metadata on 14 Brazilian International Relations (BIR) journals and more than 5000 articles published between 1997 and 2021. We collected the data by harvesting the journals’ public web pages via web scraping and later cleaned and structured the information in a rectangular format. A complete understanding of the International Relations field in Brazil requires a deep analysis of the ecosystem of IR academic journals and engaging explicitly and exclusively with scientific articles published in such venues. But, as of today, scientometric analysis covering BIR is rare and limited, as primary indexing sources and popular databases do not fully cover Brazilian International Relations journals. By presenting and publishing the dataset we aim to overcome such a barrier and encourage further scientometric studies in the country.

Sea Blindness in Turkish International Relations Literature

The oceans and seas cover 72% of the Earth’s surface, and 85% of global trade is done by maritime transportation. Moreover, 40% of the world’s population lives on or near coastlines. Also, the oceans play a crucial role in Earth’s biosphere. Recently, by desalination techniques, the seas have become a potable water resource. Therefore, one can say that the oceans and seas are indispensable for mankind. However, international disputes and collaboration efforts between states regarding the seas are not widely studied by scholars of International Relations (IR). This can be referred to as sea blindness, and it may be defined as an inability to appreciate the importance of seas and naval power, particularly with regards to strategic security and economic prosperity. A country with sea blindness is not aware of maritime supremacy as an important foreign policy tool. Similarly, IR scholars mostly focus on land conflicts and not on sea issues when they study international politics. This is particularly true in Turkish IR literature as issues on land are again the focus areas for Turkish scholars. In this context, this article makes an analysis of the articles in peer-reviewed journals and books published by well-known publishers in Turkey, providing statistics about the issues covered. Also, for comparison, major political science and IR journals published abroad are analysed with regards to publications related to the seas. This statistical analysis elucidates whether there is sea blindness in Turkish IR literature. The number of articles and books that cover the seas as crucial study areas of IR in Turkey, as well as their broad focus areas and perspectives, are revealed by this study.

Scientific journals in the context of the transformation of international relations: Problems, challenges and prospects. Part 2

This review article has resulted from the discussion during the roundtable of the editors-in-chief of the international relations (IR) journals, convened by Saint Petersburg State University as part of the Congress of the IR students (November, 2022). The article traces the main changes in scientific activities of the IR journals under conditions of dramatic deterioration of Russia-West relations and subsequent re-orientation in terms of key topics, the authors’ affiliations, and other arising problems.

QCA in International Relations: A Review of Strengths, Pitfalls, and Empirical Applications

Abstract Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) is a rapidly emerging method in the field of International Relations (IR). This raises questions about the strengths and pitfalls of QCA in IR research, established good practices, how IR performs against those standards, and which areas require further attention. After a general introduction to the method, we address these questions based on a review of all empirical QCA studies published in IR journals between 1987 and 2020. Results show that QCA has been employed on a wide range of issue areas and is most common in the study of peace and conflict, global environmental politics, foreign policy, and compliance with international regulations. The utilization of QCA offers IR scholars four distinct advantages: the identification of complex causal patterns, the distinction between necessary and sufficient conditions, a middle ground between quantitative and qualitative approaches, and the reinforcement of the strengths of other methods. We find that albeit a few exceptions, IR researchers conduct high-quality QCA research when compared against established standards. However, the field should urgently pay more attention to three issues: the potential of using QCA in combination with other methods, increasing the robustness of QCA results, and strengthening research transparency in QCA applications. Throughout the article, we formulate strategies for improved QCA research in IR.

Who creates the “common market”? The gendered practices of knowledge production in a “European studies” journal

Publishing has a variety of functions for academics. The most significant of these is linked to esteem and career success. Beyond this, however, publishing in academic journals also plays a significant knowledge production role; consequently, who is represented in journal publishing is also about who knows and is contributing to productive knowledge in different fields. In this article, we draw on the gender distribution in publishing from the journal’s inception in 1962 until 2021, for reviewing (2015–2020) and for submissions ratios since 2017 in JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies. While we identify a gender gap in publishing and a persistent one in submissions, we also highlight the ways in which this gap has impacted knowledge production and reinforced disciplinary boundaries. Over time, we also find notable changes in review participation with more women being invited to review and more likely to accept invitations to review. Because these findings are consistent with the general trends in Political Science and International Relations journals, we conclude this assessment with a reflection on what strategies have paid off to decrease existing gaps and meet some of the ongoing challenges.

Twenty-five Years of Securitization Theory: A Corpus-based Review

Twenty-five years after its initial formulation, securitization theory is at a crossroads: attempts to critically scrutinize its achievements and shortcomings proliferate, concerns about the theory’s eurocentrism are articulated, and a heated row shakes the field following accusations of racism. In this unstable context, the present article systematically reviews a corpus of 171 securitization papers published in 15 major International Relations journals since 1995, identifying two major imbalances characterizing securitization theory research. First, rich theoretical development has not been matched by sustained efforts to strengthen empirical work; second, the theory has not been globally embraced, displaying instead a narrow, distinctly local anchoring. By shedding light on these two issues and their relationships, this review article aims to provide clear and actionable observations around which scholars could productively re-organize the ongoing debates and controversies.

Rethinking “Alliances”: The Case of South Africa as a Rising Power

ABSTRACT How does South Africa view international alliances? International relations (IR) scholars have been debating the end of alliances and the relevance of the alliance paradigm itself. South Africa presents an excellent test case for advancing these debates for three reasons. First, it has been committed to nonalignment yet engages in close and complex inter-state collaborations. Second, debates about the alliance paradigm have largely taken place in, and focused on, the Global North. And third, there is a gap in South African scholarship on this subject. This article examines the South African understanding of alliances through a systematic study of its academic and policy landscape including an analysis of 285 articles from South Africa’s five most highly ranked IR journals and key policy documents produced during the post-apartheid period. The article outlines how alliances are conceptualized and operationalized. It finds that the alliance concept in South Africa departs from the traditional understanding in the Global North: alliances are often driven by mutually shared political and developmental objectives rather than an external security threat. These objectives, combined with a perception of new economic opportunities, have led to an increase in the importance of South Africa’s strategic partnerships with rising powers, and reinforced its multi-alignment diplomacy.

A Sociological Survey of Japanese International Relations Journals and University Education: Still a Discipline ‘In Between’?

AbstractThe Japanese discipline of international relations has been understood as a product of interaction with its Western other, formed and developed much like Japanese contested identity. But although much attention has been paid to how the discipline emerged and evolved, very little has been written about how the discipline looks now. To remedy that, we apply a sociology of knowledge perspective to find out whether the Japanese discipline of IR does still possess distinct qualities or whether there has been growing influence from its Euro-American counterpart. We proceed in two steps: (a) We analyze 175 articles from the Japanese language IR journals Kokusai seiji, Kokusai mondai, Kokusai anzen hoshō, Heiwa kenkyū, Ajia kenkyū, Revaiasan and Nenpō seijigaku, and dissect them according to topics, focus, author background and theories/methods used; (b) We conduct four case studies of IR education at Japanese universities to demonstrate how the discipline is taught, with a focus on lecturer background, experience and syllabus composition. Our findings suggest that although there remains a preoccupation with diplomatic history, loose methodology and either realist or atheoretical studies, there is a clear trend of convergence toward Euro-American standards, especially in university education.

A Nation that Dwells Alone? Israel in the Discipline of International Relations

The discipline of International Relations (IR) is dominated by American and American-trained scholars, who transmit American priorities, theories, methodologies, and approaches throughout IR departments around the world. Under these conditions, Israel has been used only infrequently as a case study for the development of IR theory. But Israel is rich in variables that can be used to generate new theoretical explanations and comparisons. Doing this requires Israel scholars to give more attention to newer theoretical and epistemological developments in the discipline. To illustrate this, the article discusses a survey of seven IR journals, coded for how Israel was used in the discussion of IR topics, theories, and cases. It then suggests some avenues for future research that Israel scholars who work in IR can use to bring Israel into IR theory development and knowledge generation.

Epistemic hegemony: the Western straitjacket and post-colonial scars in academic publishing

Abstract The field of International Relations (IR) is barely ‘international’. Scholars have voiced their concerns and as a result, we have witnessed calls for diversity and inclusion in IR, be it in publication or in syllabi. Notwithstanding, the misrepresentation of non-Western scholars in the production of knowledge is significant. This article sheds light on the dynamics of publishing from a non-Western perspective and reinforces Post-Colonial epistemological critiques in IR. Based on the latest dataset from the International Studies Association (ISA)’s journals, this article argues that the current setting of IR journals is not suited for and receptive of non-Western scholars and epistemologies.

Not International Relations’ ‘mare nostrum’: On the divergence between the Mediterranean and the discipline of International Relations

ABSTRACT This study analyzes the (dis)connections between the Mediterranean and the discipline of International Relations (IR) by focusing on their interactions from two distinct but complementary perspectives. First, a comparative analysis of leading academic IR journals both from the most active IR scholarly communities (American/global, European, British) and across the northern/European Mediterranean region (Spain, France, Italy, Croatia, and Turkey) looks to what extent topics related to the Mediterranean have found a place in these publications. Second, it offers a more disciplinary analysis that considers the reasons of IR’s lacking engagement with the Mediterranean, pointing to the discipline’s historical and sociological development that hindered a greater role for this significant region in IR theories and empirics. The study concludes by discussing the possibility of a Mediterranean IR theory that would consider the region’s distinct world historical role while pointing to the constraints faced by such an alternative theoretical framework.

US Dominance in International Relations and Security Scholarship in Leading Journals

AbstractThis article investigates the factors that affect scholarly attention on particular countries in four major international relations (IR) journals: International Studies Quarterly, International Organization, International Security, and World Politics for the period 1970 to the present. The analysis supports three basic conclusions. First, the United States receives the most scholarly attention in leading IR journals by a large margin. Second, a baseline model of scholarly attention, including just population, gross domestic product (GDP), and a dummy for the United States fits the data rather well. Additional factors such as membership in prominent international organizations or involvement in armed conflicts improve model fit, but only marginally, with little evidence of regional or English-language bias. And third, there is only weak evidence that countries with stronger economic and security linkages with the United States receive more attention. However, Israel and Taiwan—two countries with unique security relationships with the United States—receive more scholarly attention than either the baseline or augmented models would predict. Our analysis of bibliometric data from leading IR journals indicates the United States is the three-hundred-thousand-pound blue whale of IR scholarship. However, this emphasis is not particularly outsized when its large population, economy, and its extensive history of participation in interstate wars are taken into account.

The Second Great Debate Revisited: Exploring the Impact of the Qualitative-Quantitative Divide in International Relations

AbstractHalf a century after the “Second Great Debate” in international relations (IR) started, scholars still perceive the qualitative versus quantitative division as their principal divide, and yet we do not have a good grasp of the impact of this divide. My research explores how the divide shaped the incentives and behaviors of scholars and influenced the organization of our academic communities and knowledge production. The impact of the divide expressed itself in the distribution of research among methodologies in terms of relative quantity and impact. Less obviously, and yet more importantly, the divide influenced the distribution of quantitative research among different institution types, across fields and journals, and with respect to policy engagement. Using the TRIP database of 7,792 IR articles in twelve top journals from 1980 to 2014, I classify journal articles into three categories—quantitative-only, qualitative-only, and mixed-methods—and categorize author institutions into similar types—publishing quantitative research only, producing nonquantitative work only, and publishing various proportions of quantitative research. Notably, qualitative and quantitative works switched positions over time in terms of relative quantity and impact, with quantitative research more likely published but only slightly more cited in the recent decade. More importantly, the divide produced other less obvious but more serious outcomes. Among 1,111 institutions that ever published IR research in twelve top journals over thirty-five years, two-thirds published nonquantitative research only; fifty-three institutions published more than half of all quantitative articles; institutions publishing quantitative-only or nonquantitative-only research constituted two modal categories. Political science journals published more quantitative research, persistently and with growing convergence; IR journals also evolved toward publishing more quantitative research though with persistent divergence and forming two clusters. Quantitative articles and political science journals were significantly less engaged in providing policy prescriptions than qualitative articles and IR journals. To overcome this lasting and self-perpetuating divide, we must better understand its impact, learn to appreciate alternative approaches, and change the way we train future scholars.

Is International Relations a Global Discipline? Hegemony, Insularity, and Diversity in the Field

ABSTRACTUsing data from the Teaching, Research, and International Policy (TRIP) project, we address several questions posed by students of the international relations (IR) discipline, specifically, whether and to what extent: US scholars, institutions, and journals dominate the field; national communities of IR scholars are insular or inward-looking; and/or the discipline is theoretically, methodologically, and epistemologically diverse. We draw from two major data sources: a series of cross-national surveys of IR faculty in thirty-two countries and a database of journal articles published in the twelve leading IR journals from 1980 to 2014. We find obvious signs of US hegemony and insularity. Other national IR communities are relatively open to foreign ideas, if not to hiring scholars trained in other countries. Finally, despite US hegemony in the discipline and pockets of geographic insularity, we see a diverse field characterized by a wide range of theoretical, methodological, and epistemological commitments. We conclude with a discussion on the sources and consequences of diversity in the international relations discipline.

Academic in-group bias: An empirical examination of the link between author and journal affiliation

Do academic journals favor authors who share their institutional affiliation? To answer this question we examine citation counts, as a proxy for paper quality, for articles published in four leading international relations journals during the years 2000–2015. We compare citation counts for articles written by “in-group members” (authors affiliated with the journal’s publishing institution) versus “out-group members” (authors not affiliated with that institution). Articles written by in-group authors received 18% to 49% fewer Web of Science citations when published in their home journal (International Security or World Politics) vs. an unaffiliated journal, compared to out-group authors. These results are mainly driven by authors who received their PhDs from Harvard or MIT. The findings show evidence of a bias within some journals towards publishing papers by faculty from their home institution, at the expense of paper quality.

Reversing the Marginalization of Global Environmental Politics in International Relations: An Opportunity for the Discipline

ABSTRACT Despite the increasing urgency of many environmental problems, environmental politics remains at the margins of the discipline. Using data from the Teaching, Research, and International Policy (TRIP) project, this article identifies a puzzle: the majority of international relations (IR) scholars find climate change among the top three most important policy issues today, yet fewer than 4% identify the environment as their primary area of research. Moreover, environmental research is rarely published in top IR journals, although there has been a recent surge in work focused on climate change. The authors argue that greater attention to environmental issues—including those beyond climate change—in IR can bring significant benefits to the discipline, and they discuss three lines of research to correct this imbalance.