Global Governance was established in 1994 to publish high-quality scholarship on the role of international institutions in world politics and to foster debate around this general theme. Its primary aim has been to publish refereed articles that are accessible and interesting to both academics and practitioners. The journal has also striven to put forward voices and perspectives about multilateralism that were underrepresented in mainstream literature. Our editorial predecessors sought--and we will continue to seek--offerings that reflect diversity, not simply with regard to the types and origins of sources but also to the gender, geographical origins, and professional background of authors. Subjects of global importance and impact should, by definition, draw upon an ever widening variety of contributors and viewpoints. In no small measure because of yeoman efforts by Roger Coate and Craig Murphy, we take helm of what the American Publishers Association recognized in 1996 as the Best New Journal in Business, Social Sciences, and Humanities. In preparation for our five-year term, however, we decided to take a hard look at the past. We wished to assess how contributors derived their data, hypotheses, and supporting arguments, as well as to determine the extent to which Global Governance has drawn upon a broad range of authors who make use of diverse research. We designed a study that was both introspective and comparative in nature. We also thought it would be interesting to see how Global Governance compares with other refereed journals that contain substantial offerings on multilateralism. In particular, given our explicit objectives regarding diversity of authorship, content, and sources, we wished to know whether our journal has addressed these issues in a more substantial and sustained way than counterpart journals. From the universe of academic and policy journals, any selection of a comparative pool is bound to raise questions. In consultation with members of the editorial board, we selected what are arguably the two most prestigious North American journals in the field, along with two well-respected journals published in Europe: International Organization, World Politics, the Journal of Peace Research, and International Affairs. The editorial teams from these journals might question our selection of variables and their interpretation. We do not suggest that other priorities are mistaken or inappropriate. But we are interested in seeing how we are doing in pursuing goals that we deem desirable. We presume that some of our readers share this curiosity. Defining Variables The sixteen variables that formed the basis of this study can be divided into two groups. The first group includes author profiles, which measures residence, region of origin, gender, and profession. The second group constitutes article profiles, which takes stock of the number of authors, acknowledgments, pages, endnotes, and sources (secondary and primary, with interviews as a discrete category) per article. In addition to the total number of published sources, the analysis also gauges the use of sources in the English language published in the main markets (North America, United Kingdom), sources in English outside those markets, and sources in other languages. We acknowledge that data are approximate in certain instances. The data set draws upon material in the journals (occasionally uneven in detail) and is supplemented by our knowledge (sometimes incomplete). Complete accuracy would require a costly follow-up. We are attempting to present an indicative snapshot. There is no reason to believe that the margin of error is wide enough to draw into question the overall thrust. And so, what is our niche? Should the journal change in the next five years? Comparing Global Governance and Some Competitors, 1998-1999 How do the eight issues from the two most recent years of Global Governance (GG) compare with the same number of issues of other journals in the comparative pool? …