Who publishes in the discipline's leading journals is a matter of intrinsic interest to political scientists. Indeed, any discipline is first and foremost about the people who practice it. A focus on who publishes also raises important questions concerning the relationship between the characteristics of authors, such as their gender, seniority, institutional affiliation, and nationality, and the knowledge they produce. Is who publishes associated with what is published? Moreover, publications in leading journals are an important marker of professional status and a key conduit for the diffusion of ideas. This points to a further question: Do the top journals differ in terms of the authors and research they publish?We are grateful to Angela Hawken for her advice on the construction of the data set, to Matthew Lieber for his assistance with data collection, and to PS's two anonymous referees for their comments and suggestions.

APSA is pleased to recognize political science faculty members who received campus-wide and department awards for teaching excellence during the 2006–2007 academic year. APSA, Rowman Littlefield Publishers, and Pi Sigma Alpha, the national political science honor society, recognize award-winning faculty members each year at the Reception Honoring Teaching at the APSA Annual Meeting. Recognized faculty members receive a certificate noting their accomplishment and their awards are announced in PS and on the APSA web site.

It is with indescribable sorrow that we write with news of the death of our dear friend and colleague, Timothy Cook. Tim passed away from complications associated with brain cancer on August 5, 2006, in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. He was only 51. Tim held the Kevin P. Reilly, Sr. Chair in Political Communication at Louisiana State University.

In 1995, I wrote an article for the Chronicle of Higher Education outlining the problems of publishing scholarly books in literary criticism and explaining why the Penn State University Press could no longer afford to remain active in this field. Of the 150 books about literature the Press had put out in the previous decade, 65% had sold fewer than 500 copies, 91% fewer than 800 copies, and only 3% more than 1,000. The pattern of sales in this discipline had eroded to the point where a press without much of a subsidy from its parent university could not sustain a publishing program in it anymore. It seemed clear even then that what we scholarly publishers have come to call the problem of “endangered species” would be spreading to other disciplines over time. Five years later, in an article I wrote for the newsletter of APSA's Organized Section on Comparative Politics (2000), I analyzed data that seemed to show that field to be heading in the same direction as literary studies, and I concluded with not a great deal of hope for the future. Recently, at the invitation of the Association for Political Theory, I turned my attention to the subfield of political theory and offered this paper as background for the session on book publishing at the conference in November 2006. While many of the same pressures remain in place to bedevil university presses, and it would be premature surely to claim that we are out of the woods yet, there have been some significant changes that give reason to think the future may not be quite as gloomy as it appeared back at the turn of the millennium.This article was initially prepared as a background paper for the Association for Political Theory conference plenary session, November 4, 2006.

How well are women authors represented in the most-recognized journals in political science? To what degree does the presence of women authors mirror women's presence in the discipline? Although a few studies have sought to provide data on the presence of women authors in political science journals (Young 1995; Kelly et al. 1994), more recent work on the visibility of women in the discipline has focused on gender and authorship of edited volumes (Mathews and Andersen 2001), on the participation of women in the APSA annual meetings (e.g., Gruberg 2006; 2004), and on the status of women in the discipline (Sarkees and McGlen 1992; 1999; Committee on the Status of Women in the Profession 2001). All are useful endeavors. This paper analyzes the presence of women authors in six volume years (1999–2004) of eight prestigious political science journals—American Political Science Review (APSR), American Journal of Political Science (AJPS), Journal of Politics (JOP), World Politics (WP), International Organization (IO), Comparative Politics (CP), Comparative Political Studies (CPS), and International Studies Quarterly (ISQ).

The authors of the previous papers offer the following learning objectives for internationalized curriculum specific to their sub-fields.

The epigraph beginning this article came from a student in my standard Introduction to Political Theory course at the end of the fall, 2005 semester. This course was offered at San Francisco State University (SFSU), a large (30,000 students), public, urban institution and part of the California State University system. The size of the class was 45 students, typical for such an introductory course, consisting mostly of juniors and majors in political science (since the course is a requirement for graduation for such majors). The intellectual caliber of the students appeared to be normally dispersed: there were some excellent students and some weak ones, especially with regard to the latter group's writing skills—a quite common occurrence at SFSU. Almost all of the students had completed at least one other core class (usually Introduction to American Government or Comparative Politics) and were taking a political science elective concurrently with the introductory political theory course.

Professor Rita Nealon Cooley died on October 1, 2006, in her home in New York City. She was born in New York in 1919 and attended a Catholic School in the Bronx where she won the Classics prize and was the Class Valedictorian. After graduating from Hunter College in 1940, cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa, and as winner of the Constitutional Law prize, she was awarded the Penfield Fellowship by the department of politics at NYU in 1943 and began taking courses in the graduate school.

Participation by women in the roles of chairpersons, papergivers, and discussants on the panels and roundtables, as well as the poster sessions, that convene at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association (APSA) has long been tracked by Gruberg (see, for example, but not inclusive, Gruberg 1992; 1993; 1994; 1995; 2001; 2002; 2004; 2006). His reports provide a welcome record of women's increasing presence at the APSA's annual meetings. This study seeks to supplement Gruberg's efforts by providing a comparative perspective with data from the most recent annual meeting of the International Studies Association (ISA). The ISA's annual meeting provides a useful comparison for two reasons. First, a very large percentage of its members are political scientists, thus offering a comparison to an association consisting of people with comparable training and research agendas as represented at APSA. Second, the APSA has in recent years sought to forge international connections, making ISA an increasingly relevant sister organization.

Michael Baruch Grossman, 70, a political science professor whose specialty was the relationship between the president and the news media, died May 14, 2007, in Oakland, California, from complications arising from pancreatic cancer.

Simulations are an important complement to a traditional political science education in that they can promote active learning and enhance student understanding of course material. Simulations can also provide students with the opportunity to learn and develop important research, writing, public speaking, and analysis skills. This essay describes a multi-class campaign simulation of my own design that was run in two upper-level government courses during the spring of 2006 at Hamilton College. This simulation is designed to promote student engagement in political ideas and concepts from the varied perspectives of candidates, campaign staff, parties, the media, and voters. At the same time, the simulation also helps students develop the knowledge and skills needed to succeed in a political campaign, legislative office, or other professional political environments.I wish to thank Sharon Waring Rivera and Brian S. Glenn for providing helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper.

Competition came to Mexico's new democracy with unexpected fury in the nation's 2006 presidential election. Until recently Mexico was the bastion of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), where opposition parties could rarely hope to gain half as many votes as the PRI. But in the July 2 presidential election, Felipe Calderón of the National Action Party (PAN) edged Ándres Manuel López Obrador of the Democratic Revolutionary Party (PRD) by a mere 233,831 votes, or 0.58% of the more than 41.5 million cast. The PRI's candidate, Roberto Madrazo, finished a distant third. Calderón took this razor-thin margin after a fiercely competitive campaign marked by lavish media spending and the use of negative attack ads. López Obrador has contested the outcome from the time the polls closed until the present, calling his supporters into the streets on several occasions to put pressure on the electoral authorities to recount the votes; staging an “election by acclamation” in which those present at a rally on Mexico's Independence Day “elected” López Obrador by a show of hands; and holding an “inauguration” ceremony on November 20, the anniversary of the onset of the Mexican Revolution. While López Obrador challenged the preliminary outcome, Calderón had to wait patiently until the Federal Electoral Tribunal (TRIFE) declared him elected on September 5, fully two months after the ballots had been cast.

John W. Lederle, age 94, born in Royal Oak, Michigan in 1912, president of the University of Massachusetts, 1960–1970, died February 13, 2007. His wife of almost 69 years, Angie, died March 4th, both in Naples, Florida, where they lived in retirement. They leave a daughter, Pamela Marro, and a son, Thomas.John Lederle's papers, some 32.5 linear feet of shelf space, are in the Special Collections and University Archives of the Du Bois Library at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. They cover chiefly his time as University president (1960–1970), but the collection spans the years 1947–1983. The include professional correspondence, administrative records, subject files, committee notes, reports, and clippings. Administrative records document the operation of the Amherst campus as well as the development of two new campuses (Boston and the Medical School in Worcester). Extra-university records document other Lederle activities, including work with various boards and agencies. Personal correspondence and a transcript of an oral history are included.

Iattended my first American Political Science Association meeting in 1949. It was an exciting experience for me as a first-year graduate student. I already venerated several established scholars in the profession. Herman Finer and Carl Friedrich were the towering figures on my intellectual landscape in comparative politics, my major field. In American politics, in which I was a teaching assistant, Edward S. Corwin and Carl B. Swisher were giants. And here they were, conspicuous in the halls of the hotel, standing for hours, as I recall, each in his own place, talking with groups of awe-struck students. The greats of the profession were suddenly real people rather than simply names on books. The APSA membership included a significant cadre of political leaders, public figures, and well-known journalists. I was astonished to see Senators Hubert Humphrey and Paul Douglas, Congressman Jacob Javits, Ralph Bunche, who had just served as acting UN Mediator on Palestine, and Max Lerner, a noted editorial writer and political theorist.

“Simulation is an umbrella term that covers some interesting active-learning strategies—including role playing, simulation exercise and games and computer models—that allow students to practice and apply their learning” (Meyers and Jones 1993, 89; italics in the original). As this quote indicates, educational exercises, simulations give students the chance to apply theory, develop critical skills, and provide a welcome relief from the everyday tasks of reading and preparing for classes. Students “put on the skin” of another person and participate in the learning process. For the social sciences, where there are few absolutes or certainties, students can investigate the major questions of the discipline experientially. Comparison, analysis, and evaluation by students are the natural outcomes of this learning environment (Bain 2004; Meyers and Jones 1993). Simulations have become increasingly popular in the teaching of social sciences and, when done properly, they are effective. Shifting the focus from the teacher to the student provides more immediate feedback to the student than a lecture and exam some time in the future. Students immersed in the “game world” must actively demonstrate their grasp of the subject. As members of teams, students have increased accountability as well as assistance from their peers in learning (Bain 2004; Wheeler 2006). In addition to engaging students, simulations make complex theories clearer. Active participation in the knowledge experience, as opposed to being a passive observer, allows students to experiment and build their own knowledge base. A number of studies have shown that this approach increases comprehension, builds critical thinking skills, and improves retention (Asal 2005; Krain and Lantis 2006).

Symposium authors' bios.

This paper is the second of a three-part series dealing with quantitative indicators of impact and prominence in the political science discipline. In these essays, we assess some of the changes in the discipline since the publication of the Somit and Tanenhaus (1963; 1964; 1967) studies that cover the first 60 years of the twentieth century. In the first paper of the series, published in the January 2007 issue of PS (Masuoka, Grofman, and Feld 2007), we focused on the individual visibility and impact of all regular faculty in Ph.D.-granting departments by using SSCI-based cumulative citation counts to their lifetime work. In particular, we identified the 400 most-cited faculty members in the discipline, and we found that citation counts are strongly influenced by factors such as date of Ph.D., subfield, and gender. This, the second paper in the series, shifts to departmental-level data and details the historical changes in Ph.D. production and placement rates from 1902–2000. The last paper in the series, to be published in the July 2007 issue of PS, will combine the individual-level citation data presented in the first paper with the Ph.D. production and placement data in the second paper to look at the factors that affect reputational rankings of Ph.D.-granting political science departments.The authors would like to thank Russell Dalton, Lee Sigelman, and the anonymous reviewers of PS for their helpful feedback and corrections. We are also indebted to the bibliographic assistance of Clover Behrend-Gethard and to the inspiration of Joe Tanenhaus' pioneering work. Any errors presented in this paper are the sole responsibility of the authors. The authors welcome corrections to the data that is presented in this series. Comments and corrections can be sent to Bgrofman@uci.edu.

Since the end of World War II, a strong transatlantic partnership has been a cornerstone of Western geopolitical strategy. This does not mean that transatlantic relations have always been cordial. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was beset by periodic crises and disagreement throughout the Cold War and into the 1990s. Recent disagreements centered on the deployment of intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Europe during the 1980s, and on NATO involvement in the former Yugoslavia during the 1990s. In the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, NATO enjoyed a brief resurgence as its member nations voted unanimously to activate their mutual defense commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty (see Kaplan 2004). However, this was soon eclipsed by the subsequent dispute over U.S.-led military intervention in Iraq, the rancor rising out of which has struck such seasoned observers as Henry Kissinger and Colin Powell as being an order of magnitude worse than from past NATO crises (cited in Pond 2004, ix). Kaplan (2004, ix) describes it as a “near death” experience that threatened “to dissolve an entity that had survived over half a century.” Others argue that the alliance can and should be “saved” from a crisis that “need not be terminal to the political vitality of Atlanticism” (Hodge 2004, x). We suggest that this diplomatic crisis is doubled by a crisis in European confidence in the U.S. which may also be of unprecedented magnitude, and of some duration.

The Council on Foreign Relations was founded in 1921 as an independent, national membership organization and a nonpartisan think tank dedicated to producing and disseminating ideas to foreign policy practitioners, including Council members, senior government officials, prominent journalists, and members of Congress and their staffs. Two years ago, the Council launched its Academic Outreach Program, designed to connect the academic community to the Council's research and analysis. The program consists of the following components.

John M. Maki, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, died December 7, 2006, at age 97. His wife, Mary, “an ideal wife,” partner in an “ideally happy marriage,” died in 1990. (Quotations are drawn from his autobiography, Voyage through the Twentieth Century [2004].) Two sons, John A. and James P., survive him. So, too, his good reputation.