Professional journals are central in our professional lives. They are a primary means of communicating new ideas and research findings to other political scientists, and hence help record, however haltingly, our collective progress in understanding the political world. In a business where one's academic contribution is frequently taken as a tally of publications, the journals also function as an important instrument of professional advancement. Counts of vitae entries, however, seem to be generally weighted by judgements of quality; but the quality assessed quite often appears to be of the journal in which an article appears rather than the quality of the specific article. It is interesting therefore, and perhaps prudent to consider how the community of political scientists evaluate the journals in which we publish. This short note presents some data on this question.

Our data were gathered from questionnaires mailed in April 1974 to a sample of 515 political scientists affiliated with Ph.D. granting institutions. The number of usable returned questionnaires is 255 for a response rate of 50 percent. Respondents were asked to rate 63 journals presented alphabetically with additional space provided for the rating of journals not included on the list. The respondents were instructed to rate each journal in terms of the general quality of its articles. The rating scale ranged from 0 to 10 with 0 = poor, 2 = fair, 4 = adequate, 6 = good, 8 = very good, and 10 = outstanding. Respondents were asked only to rate those journals with which they were familiar. In addition to the ratings, information was also gathered on the age, academic rank, academic affiliation, graduate school, recent journal publication information, and areas of professional interest of the respondents.

Does a researcher have a legal right not to reveal the identity of sources or subjects and not to reveal information obtained in confidence in the course of research, when asked to do so by a grand jury or other investigatory body? Should a researcher have such a right? Under what circumstances, if any, does a researcher have an ethical obligation to promise a source of information not to reveal the identity of the source and the content of what is learned? What position should the various social science associations take, if any, on questions of the ethical responsibilities and legal rights of researchers concerning the confidentiality of research sources and information?

The above questions, among others, are believed to be of fundamental importance to the social science community. Under the initiative of the American Political Science Association, a research project was conceived to investigate these questions and others, and to recommend alternative solutions. A grant was secured from the Russell-Sage Foundation and co-sponsorship arranged through the Consortium of Social Science Associations, of the various national social science associations, including the American Anthropological Association, the American Economic Association, the American Historical Association, the APSA, the American Psychological Association, the American Sociological Association, the Association of American Law Schools, and the Association of American Geographers. In addition, liaison relationships were established with the American Statistical Association, the American Association for Public Opinion Research, the American Psychiatric Association, and the Oral History Association.

Two years ago I submitted some aggregate data to PS about time-span averages lying between graduation and completion of Ph.D. requirements in Political Science. These tabulations were based on the annual listings of “Doctorial Dissertations in Political Science” by the American Political Science Association. The following is an update and expansion on these findings. The idea was to relate departmental programs or guidelines—it is generally suggested that a period of four to five years should be sufficient for the completion of all Ph.D. requirements—to the time span that actually “lies” between graduation and the awarding of the doctorial degree.

In a number of responses some critics have pointed out that the calculated averages of 10.0 to 9.5 years (from 1970–72) do not reflect on actual seminar and research time, since they are inflated by such time consuming factors as military service, need to work for financial support, travel, etc. This is an important point which should be made very clear.