The rejection of manuscripts by journals is clearly the norm in the social sciences. For example, in 1976 about 700 manuscripts were submitted to the American Economic Review and more than 500 were rejected; the American Sociological Review rejected more than 500 of about 600 submitted; and of the 525 manuscripts reviewed by the American Political Science Review, almost 500 were rejected. To be sure, these are the top journals in their disciplines; but other respectable journals display the same pattern for that year: the Southern Economic Journal turned down well over 400 of the 500 manuscripts received; the Social Science Quarterly rejected about 425 of the almost 500 received; and the American Journal of Political Science received about 320 and rejected 270. That a perusal of the editorial reports of other journals would yield comparable findings is documented by a survey of 72 economics journals which collectively reported a rejection rate of 77 percent.

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” The aptness of Orwell's observation is not confined to the community of Animal Farm, but extends to the “community of scholars” which constitutes the “learned discipline” of political science as well. In fact, as conceptualized by Albert Somit and Joseph Tanenhaus in their seminal study of American Political Science, a “gallery of great men” is one of the characteristics of such a discipline, serving (inter alia) “… both as a sign of professional kinship and as a means of cementing these bonds.”

As an organized human activity, political science possesses a number of formal and informal stratification systems. The former reflect the decentralized nature of the discipline and include the various departmental structures as well as the hierarchies of the specialized and regional associations and of APSA. The informal stratification systems—essentially the considered assessment of the significance of individual contributions to the discipline—are substantially more subjective. These diverge along idiosyncratic as well as along the institutional, geographic, and subfield dimensions of the formal stratification systems. Moreover, the formal and informal systems will depart to some extent, since they are based upon different and sometimes contradictory criteria. Frequently, a particularly prominent contributor to the discipline will be elevated to the Association's presidency in recognition of these activities. In other cases, however, the nature of the contribution precludes such formal acknowledgment.

Is it possible that despite the many studies of political leadership that social scientists have overlooked the most obvious determinant of politicians' behavior?

Right under their noses all along, so to speak, was what I shall call, for want of a better descriptive title, the Food Connection. You are what you eat, health food people say, and this aphorism may disclose an entirely new area of study, a new subfield for political science. It certainly merits investigation.

The possibilities are tantalizing. Is there a correlation between gastronomical and political style and success? Does digestion determine decision-making? What, in fact, is the connection between a politician's head and stomach.

Consider the importance of such psychology of food. American presidents have already been analyzed as psychological types. Now astute observers could also arrange them into epicurean categories. If food input does affect political output, a study of their eating habits could increase our understanding of their performance in office.

Political scientists have been experiencing a 30-year boom in students, resources, opportunities and salaries unlike none other in the history of the profession, but there is little doubt that trends in all these areas are now turning downward. Some lingering skepticism remains about the magnitude of the coming troubles, but most members of our profession are aware not only that the boom is over, but that something ranging from a recession to a thumping depression is almost upon us.

The Committee on Professional Development has been formed in response to the gathering difficulties faced by political scientists. The Committee's task is to identify and precisely describe the problems being encountered by the profession and to suggest solutions. We begin by communicating with members of the National Association through its committees and publications, but hope that our reports and proposals might also stimulate debate and action within political science departments across the country. The profession still is in the early stages of what surely will be an extremely trying period of its history. If foresight is exercised, however, and we are flexible enough to adapt to changing social needs, it is possible that some of our problems can be transformed into opportunities. Our Committee is intended to aid in this important process of adaptation by encouraging the entire profession to discover new bases for intellectual growth.

Probably the main topic of conversation at most recent professional meetings of political scientists is the job market. For graduate students and professors alike, getting a job, keeping a job, or improving one's position take precedence over traditional scholarly concerns. Statistics gathered by APSA and presented in PS by the Association's official Cassandra, Tom Mann, point to a worsening job situation despite some success in the profession's holding its ground until recently. According to Mann, “the outlook for the next decade and a half is grim” in the face of such facts as a projected 25 percent decline in the college-bound population between 1980 and 1994, the prospect that almost all demand for academic political scientists will be replacement for those who retire, die, or move out of the profession, and the possibility that the production of new political science Ph.D.s will increase despite adverse demand.

Over the past two years, the field of international human rights has emerged from obscurity to prominence. Indicators of the prominence are many: the fact that social science and humanities (as well as legal) journals are increasingly publishing serious and scholarly research on human rights and that more and more scholars are engaqed in such research on a aystematic basis; the fact that universities, professional schools, and even high schools and junior colleges are developing new teaching courses and materials for the field; the large number of conferences being held across the country and the increasing number of human rights panels at professional meetings; and, of course, the increasing attention given to international human rights problems in the national press.

Report on Workshop Preparing for 1980 Presidential Election: Research and development (R&D) in preparation of the Center's 1980 Presidential Election Study was the theme of a two-day workshop held at the Center for Political Studies, University of Michigan, August 14–15, 1978, under the auspices of the NES Board of Overseers. Those invited included John Aldrich, Michigan State; Richard Brody, Stanford; Steven Chaffee, Wisconsin; Jack Dennis, Wisconsin; Lutz Erbring, Michigan; John Kessel, Ohio State; Donald Kinder, Yale; Richard Niemi, Rochester; and Herbert Weisberg, Ohio State. Sitting in were CPS senior scholars Philip Converse and Kent Jennings as well as CPS staffers Arthur Miller, Maria Sanchez and Ann Robinson. Board members participating were Warren Miller, the principal investigator and director of CPS; Heinz Eulau, Stanford; John Jackson, Pennsylvania; David Sears, California (Los Angeles); and Merrill Shanks, California (Berkeley), who served as workshop convener.