I can only pray that this is not me

(via @kjhealy)

New ECPR standing group on political economy

The ECPR standing group on political economy has been taken over by five outstanding young scholars: Pepe Fernandez-Albertos, Silja Häusermann, Achim Kemmerling, Philipp Rehm, and Stefanie Walter. This bodes very well for the future of the group; we look forward the the upcoming activities!

Pluralism at APSA: Harry Potter, the Big Lebowski and gnostic zombies

Some say that North American political is overly narrow. Well, check out this panel at this year’s ongoing APSA conference:

Best panel title ever

I was looking at the program of the upcoming APSA conference and I came across this:

I must say, this is not less informative or accurate than most panel titles…

Sad news for political science

Peter Mair has died. (Via SDL on FB.)

The most dangerous thing about an academic education

From a speech by David Foster Wallace:

Probably the most dangerous thing about an academic education–least in my own case–is that it enables my tendency to over-intellectualise stuff, to get lost in abstract argument inside my head, instead of simply paying attention to what is going on right in front of me, paying attention to what is going on inside me.

Bonus tidbit:

Worship your intellect, being seen as smart, you will end up feeling stupid, a fraud, always on the verge of being found out.

What editors want

Orgtheory has an excellent post in which several editors of leading journals in sociology explain what is a good review for them. Worth reading in full; everything applies directly to political science.

A small excerpt:

In my experience as editor, a common complaint among reviewers is that authors have not clearly articulated their work’s core contribution to knowledge. Many readers of articles in scholarly journals may not be reading with an interest in the particular empirical case, but are reading instead for the general ideas or the work’s theoretical argument.

This is a point that I make all the time when I give feedback on PhD projects (not so much when doing reviews for journals), but somehow I have the impression that it does not come across the right way.

In related news, the American Economic Association is abandoning “double blind” peer review. Reviewers will know the identity of the authors (but not vice versa). It seems that Political Analysis has similar plans.

Swiss Political Science Review now published by Wiley-Blackwell

Starting with volume 17 (2011), the Swiss Political Science Review is published by Wiley-Blackwell, under the editorship of Cédric Dupont and Florence Passy. This is a great development in the professionalization of the flagship publication of the Swiss Political Science Association, which will help to further increase its international visibility and its appeal for scholars not based in Switzerland. A large part of the credit for this accomplishment is due to the former president of the Association, Simon Hug, and to the former editor of the Review, Daniele Caramani. Check it out and consider it for your next publication!

Peer review by Twitter

Nature News (h/t Daniel Bochsler):

Blogs and tweets are ripping papers apart within days of publication, leaving researchers unsure how to react.

This reminds me of of that Peanuts strip in which the mysterious editor to which Snoopy keeps sending unsolicited contributions throws him a rejection letter wrapped around a stone.

A visualization of plagiarism in Guttenberg’s dissertation

FlowingData (via Monkey Cage):

The dark red represents complete or masked plagiarism, while the lighter red represents different categories of plagiarism. Longer bars are for normal text, and small bars represent footnote lines.