Swan song: from 7:1 to 11:4.

Knight, W. Andy ; MacFarlane, Neil ; Weiss, Thomas G. 等

As we pass the baton to the incoming editors, it is useful to reflect on the past five years and to measure performance against goals set out in "What Is Our Niche?" (vol. 7, no. 1). We made clear our intention to build on the work of our predecessors, Craig Murphy and Roger A. Coate, under whose watch Global Governance was recognized by the American Publishers Association as the "Best New Journal" in business, the social sciences, and the humanities. We wished to continue publishing quality scholarship about multilateralism "under-represented in mainstream literature."

Our efforts to increase diversity have been only partially successful. Moreover, we altered the shape and form of articles, but their content was largely determined by exogenous events and author preferences.

In preparation for our five-year term, we examined past issues to determine the extent to which Global Governance had drawn on a variety of authors and perspectives. In consultation with members of the editorial board, we selected four refereed journals against which to make a "snapshot" comparison: International Organization, World Politics, Journal of Peace Research, and International Affairs. We identified variables for the cross-journal comparative study that were broken down into two main categories: author profiles (residence, region of origin, and gender and profession of contributors) and article profiles (the number of authors, acknowledgments, pages, endnotes and sources per article, and content). Eight issues from two recent years of each journal were used. The sample was clearly not statistically significant and the conclusions therefore indicative; but Global Governance fared reasonably well. However, there was plenty of room for improvement.

Here, in the final pages of vol. 11, no. 4, we briefly revisit the same variables. We compare the eight issues of the two most recent complete volumes of Global Governance (2003-2004) with the eight issues from the period 1998-1999 considered in "What Is Our Niche?"

Who? Author Profiles

Our earlier study found a distinct imbalance with respect to residence and national origin of authors, undesirable for a journal with "global" in its title. Two-thirds of the journal's authors resided in North America and another one-fifth in Western Europe. Only 10 percent resided in the Asia Pacific region and 2 percent in Central and South America and the Caribbean; and there were none residing in Africa, the Middle East, or Eastern Europe (see Tables 1 and 2). These statistics resemble closely the rounded percentages of members from the Academic Council on the United Nations System (ACUNS) residing in these areas: North America (53); Western Europe (30); Asia Pacific (10); the Americas and the Caribbean (3); Africa (3); and Eastern Europe (1).

In consideration of the flow from developing countries toward universities and institutions in the North, we also examined the "national origin" of authors; but the situation was not all that different. In the 2001 study, 87 percent were born in North America or Western Europe. Only 5 percent were from Africa, 6 percent from the Asia Pacific region, and 2 percent from Central and South America and the Caribbean. No authors had Middle Eastern or Eastern European origins.

The data for 2003-2004 reveal minor changes. The percentage of authors residing in the North remains virtually unchanged, although there were slightly more in North America and fewer in Western Europe. The authors residing in the South saw a decrease from the Asia Pacific region, with small increases from authors residing in Africa and Eastern Europe. There were no contributions from authors residing in either the Middle East or Central and South America and the Caribbean.

Regarding origins, there was modest improvement in the data from 2003 to 2004. The 16 percent drop in North American authors was produced by a noticeable increase of contributors whose origins were in the Asia Pacific region and also in Central and South America and the Caribbean, along with negligible increases from Western Europe, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe; and those from Africa remained virtually the same.

Like our predecessors, we utilized formal and informal networks to get the message out that Global Governance encourages submissions from everywhere. We also took proactive measures and contacted third world authors about submitting their work. We began with our first issue to translate abstracts of published articles into French and Spanish in the hopes of enticing more submissions from developing countries.

Our efforts resulted in increased submissions, especially from scholars whose residence or origins lie in underrepresented areas, but relatively few made it successfully through the anonymous review process. In 2003-2004, submissions from authors residing or originating in regions outside of North America and Western Europe increased substantially--constituting approximately 12 percent of total submissions by residence and 26 percent by origins. But the rejection rate was also substantially higher--no manuscript by an author located in underrepresented regions was accepted by referees, and only 4 percent of those from authors originating in such areas were accepted. The overall acceptance rate in 2003-2004 was 27 percent. A number of unsolicited global insights also came from underrepresented regions, and they were accepted in virtually the same percentage as unsolicited drafts from the North.

In view of our objectives, the failure to achieve any significant change in the rate at which work by scholars from or residing in underrepresented regions is disappointing. The discrepancy between the acceptance rates of this group in insights versus refereed articles is puzzling.

Although full explanation of these outcomes would require extensive additional research, several possibilities could be suggested. The discrepancy in author profiles between insights--almost half of which came from underrepresented areas--and refereed articles may reflect the fact that the editors exert a greater degree of control over the insights section in the journal. It is thus possible for them deliberately to pursue greater diversity of authorship. In contrast, our external reviewers do not know the geographical provenance of authors; and they would not be in a position to pursue the objective of diversity if they wished to do so.

Moreover, insights have requirements that may differ from refereed articles. Insights feature provocative commentary in essay form on issues of the day in global governance. Our external reviewers of articles rightly expect clear argument and originality on important questions pertaining to global governance, underpinned by rigorous method and careful use of empirical evidence. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that submissions to date from underrepresented regions simply do not satisfy the qualitative criteria being applied by anonymous reviewers.

The data for 1998-1999 revealed that 28 percent of the authors were women (see Table 3). Global Governance was modestly better in this particular category than the competition in the earlier study, and the percentage of female contributors approached the percentage of women members of the International Organization section of the International Studies Association (ISA)--estimated to be about 30 percent--and of ACUNS--33 percent at present. Table 3 also shows that in 2003-2004, the percentage of female authors was 31 percent. The ups and downs are also significant--for instance, in 2003, female authors were represented in half of the twelve published insights, whereas in 2004, only two of eleven were authored by women.

From the beginning, the editors have encouraged submissions from outside the academy. The earlier analysis showed that Global Governance fared better than the competition in this regard--30 percent in comparison with some 16 percent for the Journal of Peace Research, 10 percent for International Affairs, 6 percent for World Politics, and none for International Organization. The one-third of our contributors who were practitioners remained virtually the same in 2003-2004, as did the percentage of authors who identified themselves in the 2003-2004 volumes as international relations (IR) scholars (see Table 4).

The bulk of the contributions from practitioners appeared under "Global Insights," in the opening pages of each issue. In 2003-2004, for example, over two-thirds of the total published articles from practitioners appeared here. We instituted this section in January 2001 to facilitate provocative "academic op-eds." Since beginning this feature, about 60 percent have come from practitioners--45 percent of whom were from outside the North. In many cases, we solicited contributions from visible practitioners. But over the years, more and more unsolicited draft insights have come to us, from both academics and practitioners, and nearly a third have been published.

How? Article Profiles

The majority of the articles in 2003-2004 remained the work of a single author. And we also continued to discourage authors from providing a lengthy list of acknowledgments (see Table 5).

We consciously sought to decrease dramatically the length of refereed articles. We initially aimed to have pieces of 5,000 words but, in response to feedback from authors, subsequently set the limit at 7,500 words. Table 5 shows that the average article length was 14 pages rather than 21 in the earlier study. This figure includes the "Global Insights" (generally 2,500 words). Even excluding them, however, the average number of pages and words in published articles in 2003-2004 fell--to 19 pages and 7,400 words.

Shortening the average length of reviewed articles reflected two goals: to appeal to policymakers and academics, and to maintain the number of refereed articles while making room for the "Global Insights" and "Review Essays." The figures in 2003-2004 demonstrate that we published almost the same number of articles, although shorter, as appeared in 1998-1999. Each issue usually contained five refereed articles, instead of six, but there were also three insights and a review essay.

The total number of published and unpublished sources per article fell by 50 percent in 1998-1999 and 2003-2004 (see Table 6), reflecting our preference for a sparing use of citations and the essay format for insights. The use of secondary versus primary sources remained essentially the same.

Our current study looked as well at published sources (see Table 7). Fewer than half the number of published sources per article appeared in 2003-2004 than in 1998-1999. Of those in the current data, two-thirds were published by major market, English-language firms (that is, in North America and the United Kingdom)--a substantial reduction from the 1998-1999 survey. Non-English-language sources remained virtually absent from our pages.

What? The Content

What about substance? Although judgment is subjective, it nonetheless is worthwhile to examine our categorization of the main substantive thrust of articles by breaking them down into four categories: peace and security; human rights and humanitarian affairs; sustainable development; and conceptual and structural aspects of global governance (see Table 8).

When comparing the overall content of 2003-2004 with the earlier study, we note mainly a substantial decrease in contributions about sustainable development. In light of the plethora of armed conflicts and peacebuilding after wars, to say nothing of the obsessions with the wars on terrorism and in Iraq, the decreased interest in development is hardly surprising.

Indeed, as calendar year 2001 was the first volume for which we were responsible, the aftermath of September 11 in all of its forms undoubtedly explains the substantive preoccupations of our contributors. Almost a quarter of the insights and refereed articles in 2003-2004 dealt with peace and security directly and over half with related structural aspects of global governance mainly reflecting challenges in the new security landscape.

We also instituted a "Review Essay" at the end of the journal beginning in July 2001 to provide analyses about books and primary documents relating to multilateralism. The breakdown by category in Table 8 suggests a better balance across the range of the journal's substantive concerns.

Conclusion

In short, we perceive both successes and failures at the end of our tenure as editors. The "Global Insights" section has provided a way to involve practitioners as authors, diversify the contributor pool, and broaden the perspectives and expertise that the journal provides for its readers. The review essays have allowed a deeper engagement with the evolving literature on key themes of global governance; they are useful to readers who are thinking about or teaching international organization.

Perhaps our most significant shortfall in pursuing the agenda that we set for ourselves five years ago lies in the effort to "globalize" the analysis of global governance. At the end of our term, the journal remains far short of where we had hoped it would be as a venue where experts from all regions and perspectives come together to discuss their shared challenges.

We hope that our successors will continue to address the challenge of inclusion, and with greater effect. And we wish them well in their efforts to build on the successes and to address the failures of their predecessors.

Note

W. Andy Knight (University of Alberta), S. Neil MacFarlane (University of Oxford), and Thomas G. Weiss (CUNY Graduate Center) were editors of Global Governance from July 2001 through July 2005.

Table 1 Residence

 GG 1998-1999 GG 2003-2004
 Number of Number of
Location authors % authors %

Africa 0 0 2 3
Asia/Pacific 6 10 4 5
Central and South America 1 2 0 0
 and the Caribbean
Eastern Europe 0 0 3 4
Middle East 0 0 0 0
North America 41 67 46 59
Western Europe 13 21 23 29
Total 61 100 78 100

Table 2 National Origin

 GG 1998-1999 GG 2003-2004
 Number of Number of
Location authors % authors %

Africa 3 5 3 4
Asia/Pacific 4 6 9 12
Central and South America 1 2 5 7
 and the Caribbean
Eastern Europe 0 0 1 1.5
Middle East 0 0 1 1.5
North America 33 56 29 40
Western Europe 18 31 25 34
Total 59 100 73 100

Table 3 Gender

 GG 1998-1999 GG 2003-2004
Location Number of authors % Number of authors %

Female 18 28 26 31
Male 43 72 59 69
Total 61 100 85 100

Table 4 Profession

 GG 1998-1999 GG 2003-2004
Location Number of authors % Number of authors %

Practitioner 18 30 25 29
Academic (IR) 34 57 49 57
Academic (other) 8 13 12 14
Total 60 100 86 100

Table 5 Article Profiles

Sample Years Authors Acknowledgments Pages Endnotes

GG 1998-1999 1.2 0 21 44
GG 2003-2004 1.2 5 14 28.5

Table 6 Article Profiles

Sample Years Sources Secondary % Primary %

GG 1998-1999 60 40 66 18 29
GG 2003-2004 23 16 70 6 26

Sample Years Original/Interviews %

GG 1998-1999 3 5
GG 2003-2004 1 4

Table 7 Article Profiles

 Published English English
Sample Years Sources (North America/UK) % (Outside) %

GG 1998-1999 53 44 83 8 15
GG 2003-2004 17 15 88 1 6

 Non-English
Sample Years Sources %

GG 1998-1999 1 1
GG 2003-2004 1 6

Table 8 Article Profiles

Subject Area Total Articles Peace and Security %

GG 1998-1999 49 11 22
GG 2003-2004 70 19 27
 Refereed Articles 38 10 26
 Global Insights 23 6 26
 Review Essays 9 2 22

 Human Rights/ Sustainable
Subject Area Humanitarianisms % Development %

GG 1998-1999 8 17 11 22
GG 2003-2004 13 19 6 8
 Refereed Articles 8 21 4 11
 Global Insights 3 13 2 9
 Review Essays 2 22 1 11

 Global Governance
Subject Area (Conceptual/Structural) %

GG 1998-1999 19 39
GG 2003-2004 32 46
 Refereed Articles 16 42
 Global Insights 12 52
 Review Essays 4 45