Annual Report

of the International Interactions Editors

Editorial Team:

Editor-in-Chief: Jeff Pickering

Editors: Ana Carolina Garriga

Theodora-Ismene Gizelis

Carla Martinez Machain

Burcu Savun

Mark Souva

Editorial Assistants: Noëlie Frix

Leonardo Gentil Fernandes

Ghashia Kiyani

1 November 2019

2

Executive Summary

The Kansas State University, University of Essex, University of Pittsburgh, and Florida

State University editorial team present the 2019 annual report for International

Interactions. It discusses stewardship of the journal from August 1, 2018 to July 31, 2019.

During this reporting period:

• The editorial teams handled 294 (185 + 84 R&Rs + 25 carried over from last year)

manuscripts.1 Of these, 185 were original submission manuscripts (70%), 84 were

revised and resubmitted manuscripts, and 25 remained under review from the

previous reporting year. 269 manuscripts were received from August 1, 2018

through July 31, 2019, which represents an increase of 25 manuscripts (a 10.25%

increase) from the previous reporting year. By July 31, 2019, we rendered a

decision on 266 of the total 294 manuscripts handled. Decisions were still

pending on 28 manuscripts carried over into the next reporting period.

• Of the 185 total original submission manuscripts received during the annual

reporting window, 141 (76.22%) were sent for external review. This outcome is

consistent with the previous reporting year, when 77.14% of original submission

papers were sent for review (135/175).

• Of the 184 original submission manuscripts received for which decisions had been

rendered at the time of writing, 42 papers (23.1%) received R&Rs and 142

(77.2%) were rejected. Again, this mirrors outcomes from the previous reporting

year. The corresponding percentages from the 2018 report are 24.4% and 75.6%

respectively.

• The editors eventually offered acceptances to 37 papers and conditional acceptances

to a further 6 papers during the reporting year. All full acceptances were preceded

by conditional acceptance decisions that required the replication of empirical

analyses in the paper and, in some cases, additional minor revision. The 43 total

papers given some form of acceptance represents 23.24% of the original

submissions received during the review period and 14.63% of all papers handled

during the year (overall acceptance rate). The latter figure is lower than the

overall acceptance rate in the previous year (26.6%). However, the acceptance

rate in 2018 seems to be an atypical outcome resulting from variation in the timing

1 294 can include multiple decisions made over time on the same manuscript. For example, “Major

Revision,” “Conditional Accept,” “Accept.”

3

of decisions across reporting periods, as the 2017 reporting period had an

unusually low overall acceptance rate when compared to preceding years (2017:

32 papers accepted or 11.31% of the total number handled). The mean and

median acceptance rates from all papers handled over the five years preceding

this year’s reporting window were 16.86% and 14.79% respectively. The mean

and median number of papers accepted during the preceding five years is 47.6

and 46 respectively. Our acceptance rate in the reporting period is thus slightly

below, but still very close to, the rate established over recent years.

• Our mean response time (from an author’s submission until a decision) for all

manuscripts with decisions rendered during the annual reporting period,

including internally reviewed, externally reviewed, and manuscripts declined

without review, was 34.57 calendar days; our median response time was 36

calendar days. For papers sent out for review, our median response time was

50.15 days; our median response time was 46 days. Our shortest response time

was 1 day – for manuscripts declined without review. Our longest response time

was 124 calendar days. Note that our mean response time for all manuscripts

decreased 12 days (26.4%) from the previous reporting year. This may be because

our editorial team is larger than our predecessors’ team, and each editor has

responsibility for fewer total papers.

• For each manuscript sent for review, we sent an average of 5.04 review requests. An

average of 2.81 reviewers agreed to review per paper and we received an average

of 2.33 reviews per paper. These outcomes were similar to the previous reporting

year (4.99, 2.4, 2.18). The maximum number of requests sent for a single

manuscript was 15. The minimum number of days a reviewer took to return a

review was 0. The maximum number of days a reviewer took to return a review

was 83. II editors sent 39.5% of requests to women reviewers, an increase from

the 37.9% and 33.9% reported in the previous two years. After the new team

assumed the editorship of the journal on January 1, 42.5% of review requests were

sent to women. Women reviewers have similar rates of review acceptance and

review completion as males.

• Twenty-four percent of authors of original submission manuscripts were female and

76% were males. Women authors were rejected 74% of the time after review,

while 26% received invitations to revise and resubmit. In contrast, males were

rejected 71% of the time after review, and offered an opportunity to revise and

resubmit 29% of the time. Both the submission rate and the R&R rate for females

were lower than they had been in 2017-2018. Both, however were nearly

identical to the rates reported in 2016-2017, and they represent a substantial

4

improvement over outcomes recorded in previous years. We would, of course,

like to see submission rates that reflect the gender break-down among scholars

who work in the area and who belong to the ISA sections most closely associated

with the mission of the journal (whose memberships are 36-38% female, as

shown below) along with the continuation of comparable decision outcomes

across gender. We will discuss, as an editorial team, ways to solicit an increasing

number of relevant manuscript submissions from female authors. Some of our

outreach activities address this goal, as will be discussed below.

• Forty two percent of authors of original submission manuscripts were based outside

of the US, which is a similar outcome to last year. A considerably smaller

percentage of non-US based authors had papers rejected without review this year

than last, however, which suggests that a higher volume of papers submitted from

outside the US fit the journal’s scope and have the potential for publication.

• The average number of days from the time a manuscript is formally accepted for

publication until it appears online is 32.5 days, with a median of 29 days. This

compares with means of 37 and 53 days the previous two years, showing a notable

decline in the time it takes for the publisher to unveil the accepted manuscripts

online.

5

Journal Statistics, August 2018-July 2019

The data that follow are from manuscripts handled by two editorial teams. Data from the

August 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018 period represent papers handled by the outgoing

University of Pittsburgh and University of Konstanz editorial team. Papers received from

January 1, 2019 to July 31, 2019 were managed by the Kansas State University,

University of Essex, University of Pittsburgh, and Florida State University editorial team.

We present information for the full reporting year below. Submission data includes all

manuscripts received by July 31, 2019. A manuscript is only included in the data on

response time and reviewer requests if the editors rendered a decision on the manuscript

by July 31, 2019. Most figures refer to manuscripts that were submitted from August 1,

2018 to July 31, 2019, however, when necessary, we also report figures referring to

manuscripts that were decided within the August 1, 2019 to July 31, 2019 timeframe.

Depending on each analysis, we indicate whether manuscripts were subject to internal or

external review.

Manuscript Flow

During the period August 2017-July 2018, the teams received and processed 269

submitted manuscripts, not including the 25 manuscripts that were carried over from the

previous reporting period. Of the 269 submissions during this reporting period, 185 were

original submission manuscripts and 84 were revised and resubmitted manuscripts. Of all

manuscripts handled during the year (N=294), we rendered a decision on 266 papers

while 28 submitted in June/July 2019 still awaited an editorial decision.

When we declined to review a manuscript, the manuscript in question generally did not

fit the journal’s scope. These manuscripts almost always lacked a focus on international

political economy or international conflict, and most frequently dealt with political

philosophy, sociology, comparative politics, single historical cases, or contemporary or

foreign policy concerns. Manuscripts that did not fit the scope of International

Interactions were referred to other ISA journals when appropriate. A total of 44

submissions was deemed inappropriate to the scope of the journal, or 16.4% (44/269) of

total submissions during the reporting year (or 23.8% (44/185) of original submissions –

i.e., not R&R submissions). This figure is consistent with the previous reporting year,

when 40 manuscripts were considered outside of the journal’s scope, or 16.4% (40/175)

of total manuscript submissions (22.8% of original submissions; 40/244).

Of the 185 total original submission manuscripts received during the annual reporting

window, 141 (76.22%) were sent for external review. This outcome is consistent with

the previous reporting year, when 77.14% of original submission papers were sent for

6

review (135/175). Of the 184 original submission manuscripts received for which

decisions were eventually rendered (including decisions made after the reporting

window), 42 papers (23.1%) received R&Rs and 142 (77.2%) were rejected.2 The

corresponding percentages from the previous year were 24.4% and 75.6% respectively.

Of the original submission manuscripts that received R&Rs, 38 (90.5%) were eventually

given conditional acceptance decisions and 4 (9.5%) were rejected because reviewer and

editor suggestions were not effectively implemented.

An additional noteworthy pattern is the variation in submission rates over the course of

the year. As Table 1 demonstrates, submission patterns tend to reflect the constraints and

opportunities present in the standard academic calendar. A higher volume of submissions

is found in the summer and in the first two months of the year, presumably after scholars

have been able to work on their research during summer months and over winter breaks

between semesters.

Table 1: Manuscripts Received by Month of Submission

Submission Month Number of Manuscripts

Percentage

Aug-18 21 7.8%

Sep-18 20 7.4%

Oct-18 18 6.7%

Nov-18 13 4.8%

Dec-18 15 5.6%

Jan-19 19 7.1%

Feb-19 28 10.4%

Mar-19 20 7.4%

Apr-19 24 8.9%

May-19 30 11.2%

Jun-19 21 7.8%

Jul-19 40 14.9%

2 A decision had not been reached on one paper submitted during the reporting window at the time of

writing.

7

Response Time

During the period from August 2018-July 2019, the editorial team coordinated reviews

on 225 manuscripts (84 of which were revised resubmissions). This figure excludes

manuscripts that did not fit the journal’s scope and were therefore rejected without

review. The average response time for editorial decisions for all manuscripts which

underwent external review (from the date of an author’s submission to the issuance of an

editorial decision) was 50 calendar days; the median response time was 46 calendar days.

This outcome is slightly higher than recent outcomes. The average mean response time

over the six years preceding the reporting period was 46 days, while the average median

is 44 days. For all papers for which decisions were rendered, including desk rejects, the

mean response time during the reporting year was 34.6 days while the median was 36

days. This is consistent with the average mean response time over the past six years of

36.0 days, and the average median of 36.5 days. Given that this is the first year that our

editorial team has overseen the journal, we are encouraged by these results. Each editor

had to overcome a learning curve with Scholar One, the software managing submissions,

and new editorial assistants had to be trained. We are pleased that the average response

time for papers sent for external review remains well below 60 days. That said, our

foremost goal throughout the process is a thoughtful and fair review process above all

other objectives.

As an example of our commitment to this goal, we changed a policy that impacts the

response time for papers sent out for review. We decided to ask reviewers to return their

evaluations to us in four weeks rather than the three week review period II reviewers

were previously given. Our hope is that by giving reviewers four weeks to complete

reviews we will not only encourage more reviewers to accept our review requests

(because they will have more time to complete the review), but we will also provide

reviewers with an opportunity to provide more thorough evaluations.

We understand that extending the amount of time reviewers have to complete their

reviews will increase our response times, but we think the trade-off of hopefully higher

review acceptance rates and more thoughtful reviews are worth this likely cost. Initial

results on reviewer acceptances are encouraging. In the months during the reporting

period when the review deadline was 3 weeks (August 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018),

46.4% of contacted reviewers on new submissions agreed to review. After the policy

change (January to July 2019), 56.0% of contacted reviewers on new submissions

accepted the request (a 22% increase). This may be partially explained by a new editorial

team reaching out to a slightly different pool of reviewers (given variation in professional

networks), but it also likely explained at least in part by an extended review deadline.

Figure 1 provides data on response time for all submitted manuscripts from 2010 to the

8

present. As can be seen, even with our decision to give reviewers more time to complete

their reviews, our mean and median response time for all submissions is well within the

historical norms for the journal. Our goal is to maintain a response time under

approximately 60 days for papers sent out for review and to remain within the bounds of

past journal performance for response time on all submissions.

Reviewer Declines (and Response Time)

Reviewers’ willingness to assess manuscripts has the largest direct impact on the

journal’s response time. In order to capture this relationship, we collected detailed

statistics on the number of review requests we send for each manuscript, the number of

reviewers who pledge to submit an assessment, and the number of reviews that we

actually receive. Our standard practice is to request three reviews per new manuscript.

Nevertheless, not every manuscript required three reviews in order to make a decision. If

we receive two recommendations that suggest that we reject the manuscript and the

reviews are thorough and convincing, we render a decision without a third review. In

such cases, the third reviewer is notified that their assessment need not be submitted.

As reviewers either fail to respond to repeated contacts or notify us that they are unable to

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Day

s to

De

cisi

on

Report

Figure 1: Days from Submission to Decision

Mean

Median

9

assist us, we send additional requests. Once three reviewers have agreed to assist us, we

do not solicit more reviews. In each request, we ask reviewers to strive to submit their

review to us within four weeks of the date that they agree to provide an assessment. Thus,

our response time depends critically on the length of time it takes our team to secure three

reviewer commitments and for the reviews to be returned.

During the reporting period, we requested an average of 5.04 reviewers per submission

that is externally reviewed. On average, 2.81 reviewers accepted our invitation and

promised an assessment, and we received 2.33 submitted reviews per manuscript. In

other words, we had to make almost two requests, on average, for every review that we

received. The maximum number of requests sent for a single manuscript was 15. Finally,

the minimum number of days a reviewer took to return a review was 0. Although the

maximum number of days to get a review back from a reviewer was 83, most reviewers

submit their review within a timely manner, and near our deadline.

Figure 2 shows the historical comparison of reviewer invitation and response rates from the

2010 to the present. We see that the number of review requests sent per manuscript is

somewhat low by historical standards, but it remains well within established practice.

Review request acceptances appear slightly above the historical trend, which may in part

result from our extended review deadline. It may also reflect a new editorial team reaching

out to a somewhat different pool of reviewers. We averaged 2.81 acceptances per

manuscript, while last year the mean was 2.4 (a 17% increase). Nonetheless, our reviewer

acceptance rate is not much higher than the historical average. In the five years preceding

this year, the mean rate was 2.65 acceptances.

Table 2 breaks down reviewer response and completion rates by the type of submission,

either an original manuscript submission or an R&R. As noted above, our reviewer

acceptance rate on original submissions rose from the previous reporting period. For the

full reporting year, original submission review requests were accepted 51.6% of the time,

compared to 44.4% of the time last year. As noted above, this increase may be partially

explained by the fact that we extended the review deadline to four weeks. R&R review

requests were accepted 89.5% of the time this year compared to 84.7% of the time last

year. Review completion percentages (from accepted review requests) remained fairly

stable from 2017-2018 to 2018-2019.

10

Table 2: Data on Reviewers, August 2018-July 2019

Type Invited Agreed Completed

Original 5.91 3.05 2.48

R&R 2.29 2.05 1.84

All 5.03 2.84 2.33

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Val

ue

Report

Figure 2: Reviewer Responses

Requests

Acceptances

Completion

11

Female Reviewers

In 2010, the International Studies Association asked II to pilot a program in which we

collect data on reviewers by gender. We have continued to institute a gender field in

ScholarOne that users of the site are asked to complete when they first log-into their

account. It is important to point out that this is actually a field asking about biological sex.

We will use the term gender here for comparison with previous reports. However, very few

reviewers ever log-in to their accounts. To make it as easy as possible for our reviewers,

we have continued to provide them with a direct link to their review submission page (that

bypasses the log-in); this is standard practice with most journals. Changes to this policy

would impose additional burdens on reviewers and might make them less willing to review

manuscripts. The result is that reviewers do not need to provide information on gender,

and indeed, very few of them have this information currently in their account. To obtain

the data below, the editorial team conducted web searches for each reviewer that we

contacted to provide an assessment for manuscript submissions that went through external

review during the current reporting period. This includes a total 1046 discrete review

requests.

II editors sent 39.5% of requests (n=413) to female reviewers, which is an increase from

the 37.9% reported during the last period (2018-2019) and 33.87% in 2016-2017. After the

new team assumed the editorship of the journal in January 1, 42.5% of review requests

were sent to women. 48.7% (n=201) of invited female reviewers accepted the invitations

to review, and the vast majority submitted a review after accepting the invitation (86%).3

During our last reporting period these numbers were 43.4% and 92%, respectively. We

sent 60.5% of our review requests (n=633) to male reviewers. Males accepted 61.3%

(n=388) of the review requests sent to them, and most submitted a review after accepting

the invitation (89.15%).

While there is no generally accepted standard to use to determine whether the journal is

being representative with respect to gender and reviewer requests, one possibility is to look

at the gender balance among scholars who work on subjects that fall within II’s scope.

While it is difficult to determine this break-down among all relevant academics globally,

gender distributions found within pertinent ISA sections may offer a rough approximation.

Three ISA sections are, arguably, most closely related to II’s mission: Scientific Study of

International Processes (SSIP), International Political Economy (IPE), and International

3 There is some variability in female acceptance rates and completion rates over time. For example, the

acceptance rate over the past three years was 48.7%, 43.4%, and 51.3%. The completion rate was 86%,

92.2%, and 79.3%. Although a host of idiosyncratic factors could be at work here, the heavier service

burden women scholars may carry relative to their male counterparts may also play a role.

12

Security Studies (ISS). The female proportion of the membership in these sections

currently stands at between 36-38% of all members. Women account for 36.04% of SSIP

members, 38.41% of IPE, and 37.98% of ISS. These numbers suggest that the gender

distribution of the journal’s reviewer pool is generally appropriate.

Overall, these statistics lead us to two conclusions. First, female reviewers behave

similarly to male reviewers; that is, regardless of gender, we must send an average of about

2 requests for every review that we receive. Additionally, once a review request has been

accepted, female and male reviewers complete evaluations at comparable rates. Second,

the gradual increase in the percentage of female reviewer requests and female reviewer

acceptances over time (with some annual variability) suggests that the journal may be

slowly building a more broadly gender diverse reviewer pool overtime. We are cognizant,

however, that calling on a growing number of female reviewers also has some potential to

carry costs within the profession. The slightly lower completion rates for female reviewers

relative to their male counterparts may be an indicator of the heavier professional service

burden that may be shouldered by female scholars. We will continue to track these numbers

closely in coming years.

Women Authors

Women, co-authorship teams comprised of all women, and mixed gender teams of authors

frequently submit manuscripts to International Interactions. Of the 185 new manuscripts

submitted to the journal during the reporting period, there were 304 total authors. 24.01%

(n=73) of these were female authors and 75.9% (n=231) were male. Although a larger

absolute number of female authors submitted to II this year than last, the proportion of

female authors declined. Last year, 31.4% of authors were female. This year’s outcome

bears resemblance to the 2017 reporting period, when 22.2% of authors were women. It

also continues to represent progress considering that 13.1% of submitting authors were

female in 2012.

As with reviewers, there is no widely accepted yardstick for measuring the appropriate

gender distribution of manuscript submissions. Female membership rates in relevant ISA

sections (36-38%), again, offer one possible benchmark. By that measure, female

submission rates have historically been somewhat low at II. While we recognize that a

wide range of variables impact the submission decisions of authors, we are considering

ways to solicit a larger number of submissions from women. The make-up of our team in

and of itself should be a signal of our receptiveness to work from female scholars. While

both of the previous lead editors were male, two-thirds (four of the six editors) of the

members of our editorial team are women. We made an additional change to demonstrate

our commitment to work from female scholars and the value that we place on scholarship

13

regardless of the gender or other categorical attributes of authors. We added language in

our conditional acceptance letter to request that authors use the GBAT tool to review

gender balance within their bibliographies. Following ISA’s flagship journal, ISQ, our

letter notes that we consider 30% female authors cited to be a rough minimum benchmark

depending upon research specialty. We have also initiated a number of outreach activities

focusing on female scholars. For example one of our editors, Carla Martinez Machain,

used her II travel funds to attend the ISA’s ISSS-IS section conference in Denver in

October 2019. Her main reason for attendance is to participate as a mentor in the

conference’s Pay It Forward mentorship workshop for women organized by the ISA’s

women’s caucus. Martinez Machain encouraged the junior women she mentored to submit

their work to II where approproriate. Martinez Machain will also use some of her II travel

funds to travel to the 2020 ISA conference in Honolulu and participate in a roundtable

about the role of women in publishing. We hope that this type of outreach offers yet another

signal of our receptiveness to scholarship from women and other underrepresented groups.

Of course, journal reputations are sticky and it may take time for potential authors to update

their information on II (and the reputation of II on gender issues was, so far as we can tell,

excellent to begin with). Given the make-up of our team, the revision of our conditional

acceptance letter, and our outreach activities we may thus see a trend toward more women

authors submitting work to II in years to come. In the meantime, we are pleased that the

general trajectory over recent years is for a higher number of submissions by female

scholars, and we will seek ways to continue this trend.

We next look at the manuscript decisions received by male and female authors over the

past year for original submission papers that were sent out for external review. A total of

248 authors had initial submissions sent out for external review last year. We track these

original submissions to see if these authors received revise and resubmit or reject decisions.

Results by gender are presented in Table 3. Each row presents a gender category for

authors, while each column shows action taken on the manuscripts submitted by that

category of authors. The percentages listed are for the row (i.e., the percentage of

manuscripts submitted by the row on which the action listed in the column was taken).

14

Table 3: Outcomes for Authors of New Manuscripts that Underwent External

Review, by Gender (row percentages)

Gender Rejected Percent Rejected R&R

Percent R&R Total

Female 42 74% 15 26% 57

Male 135 71% 56 29% 191

Total 177 71 248

71% of male authors were rejected (135/191) and 29% male authors were granted the

opportunity to revise and resubmit (56/191). Female authors were rejected 74% of the time

(42/57) and granted the opportunity to revise and resubmit 26% of the time (15/57).

As the above statistics demonstrate, female authors received a slightly higher percentage

of rejections than male authors received and a slightly lower percentage of R&R decisions.

We were a bit surprised by this outcome, but the differences are substantively small and

track with historical data. While female authors had a slightly lower percentage of

rejections than males in 2018, in 2017 they had a slightly higher percentage of rejections

than males. In fact, in 2017 rejection percentages for women and men were exactly what

they were in the current reporting period (74% of female authors were rejected and 71% of

male authors). We will, of course, continue to monitor decisions by gender.

Global Representation

Since cross-national co-authorship has become increasingly common, we changed the unit

of analysis in our examination of global authorship from the manuscript to the author. Past

annual reports considered a paper to be US based if at least one of its authors was located

at a US institution. We analyzed instead each individual author for co-authored papers

since US based authors seem, at least anecdotally, to co-author with international scholars

with increasing frequency. Our results for 2018-2019 when accounting for individual

authors and their institution location are very similar to the results found in previous reports

that analyzed this data at the manuscript “level.” Of 304 total authors who submitted papers

in the reporting year, 57.89% (n=176) were based in the US and 42.11% (n=128) were

15

based at institutions located outside of the US. In 2017-2018, 59.84% of all manuscript

submissions during our time frame came from within the United States (or contained at

least one author at a US institution), while 40.16% came from authors who all resided

outside the United States. Although the results are similar, we believe that changing the

unit of analysis offers a more accurate portrayal of global authorship and adds specificity

to our results moving forward.

During the current reporting period, International Interactions received non-US

manuscripts from authors in Asia (n=37), Europe (n=71), the Middle East (n=10), North

America (non-United States, Canada and Mexico) (n=4), Africa (n=2) South America

(n=2), and Australia/Oceania (n=2).

Table 4 reports the regional distribution of total non-US manuscript submissions during

2017-2018 and the distribution of non-US authors in 2018-2019. Although the comparison

is not direct given the change in unit of analysis, the results are at least illustrative. They

suggest that the journal saw an increase in number of scholars located in both Asia and the

Middle East submitting manuscripts. Although scholars from Europe remain heavily

represented, their share of submissions may have declined slightly as did the share of

authors from Canada and Mexico.

Table 4: Non-US Submissions Year-on-Year Comparison

Of the 128 non-US authors with original submissions (not R&Rs) during the reporting

period, 21 (16.4%) received R&R decisions and 107 (83.6%) received rejections. Of those

2017-2018 2018-2019

Region Number Percentage Region Number Percentage Difference

Asia 20 20% Asia 37 29% 9% Europe 57 58% Europe 71 55% -3%

Middle East 5 5% Middle East 10 7.8% 2.8% North America

(non-US) 6 6% North America

(non-US) 4 3% -3% South America 2 2% South America 2 1.6% -0.4%

Africa 2 2% Africa 2 1.6% -0.4% Australia 6 6% Australia 2 1.6% -0.4%

Total 98 128

16

rejected papers, 29 were rejected without review because they did not fit the scope of the

journal (or 22.65% of all non-US authors of original submissions). This represents a

decline in the percentage of non-US based authors who received desk rejects. 38% of non-

US based manuscripts received desk reject decisions in 2017-18 and 42% received such

decisions in 2016-17. This indicates a possible increase in submissions relevant to the

journal’s scope, which is encouraging for future publication rates from authors outside of

the US. Unfortunately, the percentage of non-US based authors who receive R&Rs

(16.4%) still lags behind the overall rate at the journal (23% of total original submissions

received R&Rs). Our post-submission exchange process (modeled after JoGSS pre-

submission exchange) is designed to reduce this differential over time. We also continue

to provide authors with access to the journal’s scope (and instructions) through numerous

online outlets (e.g., ISA website, publisher’s website, and the ScholarOne website), in

addition to publishing such information within each issue of International Interactions.

Among US based authors, 52 (52/176 or 29.5%) authors received R&R decisions on

original submissions and 124 (70.5%) received rejections. 24 US based authors had their

papers rejected without review, or 14% of all US based authors. Since R&R decisions have

a high probability of converting into full acceptances, these figures suggest that US based

authors tend to receive a higher number of acceptances than authors located outside of the

US. The gap is narrowing over time, however. For example, in 2017 43% of papers

submitted with at least one US author received R&R decisions.

We will continue to solicit suitable manuscripts from outside of the US, and we find the

reduced desk rejection rate among non-US based authors to be a hopeful sign that the

number of publishable submissions from outside the US is increasing over time. We

outline some of our outreach activities in the future initiatives section below, such as

participating in publishing roundtables and similar events at notable conferences in the

profession (including international conferences) and increasing our social media footprint.

We believe that such initiatives will reach scholars outside the US, and hope that the result

is an increase in non-US submissions. We will, of course, continue to track global

submissions to assess the impact of our outreach efforts.

Subject Matter Diversity

The scope of International Interactions spans two subfields: international conflict and

political economy. For submissions received during the reporting period, 55.7% of

submitted manuscripts involve international conflict topics, while 25.9% involve

international political economy (IPE) topics. The remaining 18.4% include components of

both areas. These outcomes are similar to the previous reporting period where the

respective percentages were 54.9%, 29.7%, and 15.4%. Compared to the previous year,

17

we received a slight increase in papers identified as both conflict and IPE and a slight

decrease in papers self-identified as exclusively IPE.

Time from “Acceptance” until Online Publication

The average number of days from the time a manuscript is formally accepted for

publication until it appears online is 32.5 days, with a median of 29 days. This compares

with means of 37 and 53 days the previous two years, showing a notable decline in the

time it takes the publisher to unveil the accepted manuscripts online.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Per

cen

t

Report

Figure 3: Subject of New Manuscripts

Conflict

IPE

Both

18

Future Initiatives

Over the next year, the editorial team anticipates launching new initiatives or building on

initiatives begun in January:

- We will announce awards for the best paper and the best data feature published in

in issue 45 (2019). We plan to ask members of the editorial board to serve on two

separate committees to choose our award winners. Winners will receive a small

cash gift, a certificate, and their awards will be publicized on our social media

platforms.

- With the help of Taylor and Francis, we launched a professional journal blog page

to publicize the broader relevance of the scholarship that appears in II to

policymakers and lay audiences interested in conflict and IPE issues. We invite

authors to submit blog posts when their papers are accepted and we share

information about new blogs on our twitter and other accounts. Our blog page

can be found here: https://think.taylorandfrancis.com/gini-

blog/?utm_source=shared_link&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=JOB08162

- We plan to expand our outreach to female and other under-represented scholars.

As noted above, Editor Martinez Machain will participate on a roundtable at ISA

in Honolulu on women and publishing and participated at an ISA ISSS-IS

mentorship workshop for women. She will note II encourages submissions from

female and junior scholars. Editor Pickering will participate on a roundtable on

research productivity and journal publication at ISA Midwest in fall 2019. Like

other regional ISA conferences, ISA Midwest has a substantial proportion of

scholars from institutions that may not normally consider II as an outlet for their

work.

- Since Taylor and Francis has provided additional assistance for the journal with

an assigned virtual managing editor (acronym: Journal Editorial Office), we will

be able to repurpose funds that had been used for editorial assistance at KSU. We

will use the savings to create a pool of resources to support editors who wish to

travel to international ISA conferences to promote the journal among non-US

based populations (in editor roundtables, mentorship cafes, etc). We will also use

these funds on sponsorship opportunities at conference venues that might expand

our potential author pool. As noted above, regional ISA conferences often offer

opportunities to reach author pools that may not typically turn to II. Events

19

focused on specific scholar groups at the Peace Science Society, annual ISA, and

EPSA meetings may also reach target audiences.

20

Appendix A: Recent and Upcoming Issues

Issues during Reporting Year

44(4)

• “Accounting for Extra-Dyadic Sources of International Outcomes” by Bas,

Muhammet; Orsun, Omer; Schub, Robert

• “Economic Sanctions and the Politics of IMF Lending” by Peksen, Dursun;

Woo, Byungwon

• “Secrecy and Self-Interest: When Mediators Act Deceitfully” by

RezaeeDaryakenari, Babak; Thies, Cameron

• “Delegating Terror: Principal-Agent Based Decision Making in State

Sponsorship of Terrorism” by Berkowitz, Jeremy

• “Introducing the African Relational Pro-Government Militia (PGM) Dataset”

by Magid, Yehuda; Schon, Justin

• “Inter-Rebel Alliances in the Shadow of Foreign Sponsors” by Popovic, Milos

• “Attitudes Toward Consent-Based and Non-Consent-Based International Law”

in a Regional Power Context by Reynolds, Evangeline; Silva Nunes de

Oliveira, Amâncio; Onuki, Janina; Winters, Matthew

• “Electoral Institutions, Trade Disputes, and the Monitoring and Enforcement of

International Law” by Betz, Timm

44(5)

• “Who Can Reform the Labor Market? IMF Conditionality, Partisanship and

Labor Unions” by Gunaydin, Hakan

• “Following the Party in Time of War? The Implications of Elite Consensus” by

Wells, Matthew; Ryan, Timothy

• “Issues and Actors in African Non-State Conflicts: A new Dataset” by von

Uexkull, Nina; Pettersson, Therese

• “The Reputational Impact of Investor State Disputes” by Minhas, Shahryar;

Remmer, Karen

• “International Conflict, International Security Environment, and Military

Coups” by Kim, Nam Kyu

• “Sources of Leader Support and Interstate Rivalry” by Rooney, Bryan

21

• “Seal the Deal: Bargaining Positions, Institutional Design and the Duration of

Preferential Trade Negotiations” by Lechner, Lisa; Wüthrich, Simon

44(6)

• “Deeper Commitment to Human Rights Treaties: Signaling and Investment

Risk Perception” by Hong, Mi Hwa; Uzonyi, Gary

• “‘Mtwara will be the new Dubai’: Dashed expectations, grievances and civil

"unrest in Tanzania” by Must, Elise; Rustad, Siri Aas

• “Women’s Participation in Peace Negotiations and the Durability of Peace” by

Krause, Jana; Krause, Werner; Braenfors, Pia

• “Ethnicity, Political Survival, and the Exchange of Nationalist Foreign Policy”

by Suzuki, Akisato

• “Who is a Terrorist? Ethnicity, Group Affiliation, and Understandings of

Political Violence” by D'Orazio, Vito; Salehyan, Idean

• “Age Structure and Political Violence: A Re-Assessment of the ‘Youth Bulge’

Hypothesis” by Weber, Hannes

• “Explaining the Number of Rebel Groups in Civil Wars” by Walter, Barbara

45(1)

• "Explaining the Number of Rebel Groups in Civil Wars" by Walter, Barbara

• "Labor Migration Numbers and Rights: Do They Trade Off or Advance

Together?" by Bearce, David and Hart, Andrew

• "Ethnicity, Political Survival, and the Exchange of Nationalist Foreign Policy" by

Suzuki, Akisato

• "Age Structure and Political Violence: A Re-Assessment of the ‘Youth Bulge’

Hypothesis" by Weber, Hannes

• "The Psychological Effects of State Socialization: IGO Membership Loss and

Respect for Human Rights" by Miller, Gina, Welch, Ryan, and Vonasch, Andrew

• "`Any Press is Good Press?': Rebel Political Wings, Media Freedom, and

Terrorism in Civil Wars" by Keels, Eric and Kinney, Justin

• "Food, State Power, and Rebellion: The Case of Maize" by Koren, Ore

• "Civil War Mediation and Integration into Global Value Chains" by Chatagnier,

Tyson

22

45(2)

• "Civilian Self-Defense Militias in Civil War" by Estancona, Chelsea; Bird, Lucia,

Hinkkainen, Kaisa; and Bapat, Navin

• "The Dollar and the Demand for Protection" by Oatley, Thomas; and Galantucci,

Robert

• "Security-Civil Liberties Trade-offs: International Cooperation in Extraordinary

Rendition" by Cordell, Rebecca

• "Economics, Security, and Individual-level Preferences for Trade Agreements" by

DiGiuseppe, Matthew; and Kleinberg, Katja

• "Foreign Terrorist Organization Designation, International Cooperation, and

Terrorism" by Phillips, Brian

• “Deadly Foreign Terrorism and the Rank-Ordered Tournament for Foreign Press

Attention: Implications for Counterterrorism” by Shelton, Crystal; Cleven, Erik;

and Hoffman, Aaron M.

• “Nowhere To Go? Why Do Some Civil Wars Generate More Refugees than

Others?” by Turkoglu, Oguzhan; and Chadefauz, Thomas

45(3)

• "Useful Ignorance: The Benefits of Uncertainty during Power Shifts" by Haynes,

Kyle

• "The Catalytic Effect of IMF Lending: Evidence from Sectoral FDI Data", by

Breen, Michael; and Egan, Patrick

• “Colonial Legacy and Foreign Aid: Decomposing the Colonial Bias” by Chiba,

Daina; and Heinrich, Tobias

• “‘Mtwara Will Be the New Dubai’: Dashed Expectations, Grievances, and Civil

Unrest in Tanzania” by Must, Elise; and Rustad, Siri Aas

• “The Political Economy of Labor Market Deregulation During IMF

Interventions” by Reinsberg, Bernhard; Stubbs, Thomas; Kentikelenis, Alexander;

and King, Lawrence

• “The Rise of the Islamic State and Changing Patterns of Cooperation in the

Middle East” by Tellez, Juan; and Roberts, Jordan.

• “Treatment Format and External Validity in International Relations Experiments”

by Kreps, Sarah; and Roblin, Stephen

23

Issues in 2020 Reporting Year

45(4)

• “Foreign Policy Begins at Home: The Local Origin of Support for US Democracy

Promotion” by Christiansen, William; Heinrich, Tobias; and Peterson, Timothy

M.

• “Global Diffusion, Policy Flexibility, and Inflation Targeting” by Wasserfallen,

Fabio

• “International Influences on Nonviolent and Violent Contention by Breslawski,

Jori, and Cunningham, David E.

• “Politics or Prejudice? Explaining Individual-Level Hostilities in India’s Hindu-

Muslim Conflict” by Schutte, Sebastian

• “Religious Institutionalism: A Domestic Explanation for External Support of

Rebel Groups” by Ives, Brandon

• “Evaluating the Influence of International Norms and Shaming on State Respect

for Rights: An Audit Experiment with Foreign Embassies” by Terechshenko,

Zhanna; Crabtree, Charles; Eck, Kristine; and Fariss, Christopher J.

• “Beyond the Media’s Radar: Introducing the Intifada Non-Media Based Dataset”

by Alimi, Eitan Y.; Maney, Gregory M.; Burstein, Alon

45(5)

• “UN Troop Deployment and Preventing Violence Against Civilians in Darfur” by

Phayal, Anup

• “Labor Market Institutions and Outward Foreign Direct Investment in OECD

Countries” by Shin, Mi Jeong; and Lee, Chia-yi

• “International Conflict, Military Rule, and Violent Authoritarian Breakdown” by

Bae, Joonbum

• “The Conditional Effectiveness of Directive Mediation” by Lee, Su-Mi; and

Greig, J. Michael

• “Evaluating the Impact of Repeated Leadership Targeting on Militant Group

Durability” by Tominaga, Yasutaka

• “Failed Agreements and their Impact on Subsequent Mediation Onset and Success

in Intrastate Conflicts” by Aduda, Levke

• “Environmental Effects of GATT/WTO Membership: An Empirical Evaluation”

by Kim, Sung Eun, Urpelainen, Johannes; and Yang, Joonseok

• “The Old Terrorism: A Dataset, 1860-1969” by Tschantret, Joshua

24

45(6)

• “Never out of Now: Preference Falsification, Social Capital and the Arab Spring”

by Shamaileh, Ammar

• “Explaining Incompleteness and Conditionality in Alliance Agreements” by

Reiter, Dan; and Fjelstul, Joshua

• “Trial fairness before impact: Tracing the link between post-conflict trials and

peace stability” by Steinert, Christoph

• “Practices and Outcomes of Humanitarian Military Interventions: a New Data

Set” by Gromes, Thorsten; and Dembinski, Matthias

“Translating CAMEO Verbs for Automated Coding of Event Data” by Osorio,

Javier; Pavon, Viveca; Holmes, Jennifer

25

Appendix B: Editorial Board

Avant, Deborah* University of Denver

Aydin, Aysegul University of Colorado Boulder

Bapat, Navin University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Beardsley, Kyle Duke University

Best, Rebecca University of Missouri-Kansas City

Bodea, Cristina Michigan State University

Bormann, Nils-Christian University of Exeter

Boyer, Mark A.* University of Connecticut

Brummer, Klaus* Catholic University Eichstaett-Ingolstadt

Bussmann, Margit University of Greifswald

Chyzh, Olga Iowa State University

Colaresi, Michael University of Pittsburgh

Conrad, Courtenay R. University of California, Merced

Danzell, Orlandrew Mercyhurst University

Daxecker, Ursula E. University of Amsterdam

DeMeritt, Jacqueline H.R. University of North Texas

di Giuseppe, Matthew Leiden University

Diehl, Paul F. University of Texas at Dallas

Enterline, Andrew University of North Texas

Findley, Michael G. University of Texas at Austin

Fjelde, Hanne Uppsala University

Flynn, Michael E. Kansas State University

Fordham, Benjamin O. Binghamton University

García, Kimberly A. Nolan FLACSO, Sede México

Gates, Scott University of Oslo

Ghosn, Faten The University of Arizona

Gleditsch, Kristian University of Essex

Gómez-Mera, Laura University of Miami

Haynes, Kyle Purdue University

Heinrich, Tobias University of South Carolina

James, Patrick* University of Southern California

Jung, Sung Chul Myongji University

Kibris, Arzu University of Warwick

Kim, Dongsuk Korea National Diplomatic Academy

26

Krain, Matthew The College of Wooster

Lai, Brian* University of Iowa

Leeds, Brett Ashley* Rice University

Lisle, Debbie* Queen's University Belfast

McKibben, Heather Elko University of California, Davis

McLean, Elena V. University of Buffalo

McManus, Roseanne W. Pennsylvania State University

Meseguer, Covadonga London School of Economics

Mitchell, Sara McLaughlin University of Iowa

Mukherjee, Bumba Pennsylvania State University

Murdie, Amanda * University of Georgia

Neack, Laura* Miami University

Olson Lounsbery, Marie East Carolina University

Prins, Brandon C.* University of Tennessee

Rasler, Karen A. Indiana University Bloomington

Rider, Toby J. Texas Tech University

Salehyan, Idean University of North Texas

Şan Acka, Belgin Koç University

Schneider, Gerald University of Konstanz

Spaniel, William University of Pittsburgh

Tago, Atsushi Waseda University

Thies, Cameron* Arizona State University

Thomas, Jakana Michigan State University

Thompson, William R. Indiana University Bloomington

Tirone, Daniel C. Louisiana State University

Walsh, James Igoe University of North Carolina at Charlotte

Webb, Clayton M. University of Kansas

Weigand, Krista E.* University of Tennessee

Wolford, Scott University of Texas at Austin

Young, Joseph American University

*Lead editors of ISA journals and three most recent ISA presidents, by convention.