The Hidden Perils of Citation Counting for Australasian Political Science

Abstract

In a recent article in Australian Journal of Political Science, Dale and Goldfinch present 'standard' journal-based publication and citation rankings of Australasian political science departments designed to complement what they characterise as the multidisciplinary, historical, qualitative and humanistic political science of the region. However, the 'highly cited' articles in their top-ranked political science department belong to quantitative psychology. Through unravelling why their study favours the opposite of that which it was meant to detect, this paper alerts political scientists to the hidden perils of accepting 'standard' Institute of Scientific Information-based approaches to citation counting as valid measures of research 'quality'. It exposes the veiled bibliometric assumption that the 'best' social science is quantitative research, notes that incongruous citation scores may inform the distribution of block funding and departmental appointment processes, and warns against using 'standard' data to unintentionally self-police the future shape of Australasian political science.