Chapter

The Future of Social Science & National Security Project

Scholarly Research & Policy Relevance: One Journal Editor’s Perspective

Exploring the many ways in which journal articles may influence national security policy

By Sean M. Lynn-Jones

Defense Policy & Posture

April 25, 2023

This essay explores how scholarly articles influence national security policy. It focuses on articles in the journal International Security, which has published a higher proportion of policy-relevant articles than any other scholarly journal of international relations and foreign policy. Journal articles rarely have an immediate impact on foreign policy. They may, however, have important long-term and general effects. The articles that future policymakers read when they are students can shape their worldview and approach to national security policy. Prominent articles that advance new ideas can set the context for policy debates or persuasively challenge the conventional wisdom. Over time, a series of articles advocating a new policy may help to build support for that policy. Journal articles also can influence foreign policy by calling attention to their authors’ views and credentials to serve in policymaking positions. Authors who are appointed to government positions can influence policy directly.

Introduction

How do articles in scholarly journals influence national security policy? What purposes do policy-relevant articles serve? Why should scholars in the social sciences write and publish policy-relevant articles on problems in national and international security? What factors cause some journals to publish many policy-relevant articles? These are important questions, for at least three reasons. First, many observers have questioned whether social scientists are motivated to participate in debates on foreign and security policy and to undertake research on policy questions. Second, if social scientists opt to write policy-relevant journal articles, it is important to understand how, if at all, such articles influence government policy and discussions of contemporary policy issues. Third, examining how journals publish and promote policy-relevant articles can shed light on how such research can be effectively communicated to readers in the national security community.

This essay offers my personal perspective on policy relevance and international security studies, based on my experience as a member of the International Security editorialteam since 1987. I served as the journal’s managing editor (1987–91), consulting editor (1991–93), and editor (1994–2018) before retiring at the end of 2018. Since 2019, I have been an active member of International Security’s Editorial Board. The duties associated with the titles I held have changed over the years, but during 1987–91 and 1998–2018 I was primarily responsible for reading and evaluating every manuscript submitted to the journal, assigning manuscripts to external reviewers, setting the agenda for editorial meetings that made decisions on a short list of leading contenders for publication, chairing and participating fully in those meetings, writing comments to guide authors who had been invited to revise and resubmit their manuscripts, and working with the authors of accepted manuscripts to improve their International Security articles. In addition, I had primary responsibility for articulating and explaining the journal’s editorial philosophy, identifying possible submissions, and informing potential authors about the journal’s editorial process. I also worked with the journal’s staff and other staff at Harvard’s Belfer Center, the journal’s editorial home, to promote and publicize articles that were published in International Security. Between 1994 and 1998, I was not responsible for the day-to-day management of the journal, but I participated in editorial meetings at which manuscripts were accepted or rejected.

The essay argues that journal articles can influence national security policy, but not necessarily by having an immediate impact after having been read by government officials. Rarely, if ever, do policymakers read a journal article and then decide to rapidly adopt the policy recommended by the article. The ideas in journal articles are more likely to influence policy in other ways. One of the most important vectors of influence operates slowly. The articles that future policymakers read while they are in college or graduate school can shape their intellectual outlook and serve as a guide to their decisions when they eventually serve in government. Most policymakers have a worldview that includes ideas that they use to understand the world and to formulate policies. They often acquire those ideas as they read articles in college or graduate school.

Policy-relevant articles can have long-term influence on policy in other ways. A single article with an innovative or controversial recommendation may not have much initial impact, but over time a series of articles can gradually add to the legitimacy of a new idea or otherwise have a cumulative effect. This sort of gradual change in policy discourse is more likely if the conclusions of journal articles are presented in other forms, such as op-ed articles. Articles may be particularly useful when they challenge the conventional wisdom and criticize ideas that lack merit but are bolstered by institutional interests.

Another important way that policy-relevant journal articles can influence government policy is by helping their authors to get appointed to policymaking government positions. An article can, in effect, serve as an “audition” for aspiring policymakers. Authors who hope to serve in government often publish articles to make their views more prominent, bring their ideas to the attention of leaders who might select them for a government position, and generally develop a reputation for expertise on a topic.

Finally, policy-relevant articles can play a significant role in the academic community. When leading scholars publish well-regarded policy-relevant articles, their work may serve as a model for other scholars. Policy-relevant articles also can contribute to cumulative research.

The essay begins with a section that discusses what differentiates International Security from other prominent scholarly journals of international relations. In addition to being regarded as the most policy-oriented scholarly journal of international relations, International Security is distinguished from other journals by its host institution and editorial resources. The following section offers an overview of the evolution of how International Security has attempted to publish policy-relevant articles on topics in international security studies. The next section then considers the many different purposes that such articles may serve, including contributing to the overall foreign policy debate among members of the informed public and the policy community, challenging the conventional wisdom, providing material for teaching and models for future research, and making it more likely that the authors of articles will be selected for government service. The essay contends that policy-relevant articles can be important even if they do not have an immediate or direct impact on government policy. The essay also offers some brief observations on some of the challenges to publishing scholarly research on policy-relevant questions.

Why International Security is Distinctive: Editorial Philosophy, Institutional Factors, and Policy Relevance

International Security is generally regarded as the most policy-relevant journal in its field. A recent survey of journals of international security studies concluded that International Security “publishes more articles containing explicit policy recommendations than any other journal” and the journal “emphasizes policy relevance far more than any other journal or set of journals.”¹ In 1997, Richard Betts contended that the “academic journal that is read occasionally in Washington is International Security, because it melds policy analysis and theory.”²

International Security is one of many journals that publishes articles on topics in international relations and security studies. These journals tend to fall into three broad categories. First, there are scholarly journals of international relations. Such journals publish peer-reviewed articles, with academic citations, on a wide range of topics in international relations, including questions of international security. Prominent journals in this category include International Organization, International Studies Quarterly, and World Politics.³ Like International Security, such journals use an external peer review process to select their articles. They publish some articles that in terms of topic and approach are similar to those that appear in International Security. For example, International Organization, for decades the leading scholarly journal of international political economy, starting in the 1980s gradually became a more general international relations journal and published many security studies articles that would have been equally at home in International Security. The key differences between journals like International Organization and International Security are that International Security focusesentirely on security topics and emphasizes publishing policy relevant articles.

Second, there are peer-reviewed academic journals that, like International Security, primarily publish articles on topics in security studies. Two prominent examples are the Journal of Strategic Studies and Security Studies.The Journal of Strategic Studies was founded in 1978, shortly after International Security. Many of its articles have been similar to articles in International Security, but it tends to publish more articles on the historical dimensions of strategic studies. Security Studies, which published its first issue in 1991, is probably more similar to International Security than any other journal. In its early years, many articles in Security Studies were similar to those that appeared in International Security, although it placed less emphasis on policy relevance and the scientific and technological dimensions of security issues.⁴ The Journal of Conflict Resolution and the Journal of Peace Research are both respected journals that have been publishing on security topics for many decades, but in contrast to International Security they emphasize quantitative research and do not focus on current security issues. Overall, although other security studies journals publish articles on topics that are also featured in International Security, most do not share International Security’seditorial commitment to policy relevance.

Third, several journals publish articles on security policy but are not peer-reviewed academic journals. Survival, Foreign Affairs, and Foreign Policy are prominent in this category. Survival, the journal of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, publishes some articles similar to those that appear in International Security.It formerly published source material and short articles but since the 1970s has moved toward emphasizing longer articles with references, although it never became a peer-reviewed journal, and it continues to publish some shorter articles. Foreign Affairs and Foreign Policy are concerned with world affairs and foreign policy more generally, but they publish many articles on security topics and security policy. Several decades ago, some Foreign Affairs and Foreign Policy articles took a longer, more scholarly form and included footnotes. Over the years, however, both journals have moved toward publishing articles for a general audience. Foreign Policy adopted a magazine format and ceased to look like a journal in 2000. Foreign Affairs publishes many short articles.

In sum, there are similarities and differences between International Security and the other journals that publish on related questions, but few, if any, journals offer International Security’s combination of academic rigor and peer review, extensive documentation, social science theory, policy relevant topics, and policy analysis and recommendations. International Security stands out as an academic journal that publishes social science research on questions of security policy.

Why is International Security essentially the only academic journal that publishes policy relevant scholarship on international relations and international security? One explanation is that other journals have deliberately avoided publishing the kind of articles that appear in International Security, because the journal’s strong commitment to policy relevant scholarship in security studies takes the “pressure off other journals to publish such work.”⁵ It is difficult to assess the plausibility of this explanation without knowing what editors of other journals were thinking, but the emergence of International Security as the most policy-oriented academic journal of international relations coincided with two broad trends. First, as the number of international relations journals increased, many journals tended to become more specialized, publishing articles in a particular substantive or methodological niche of the market.⁶ Second, the gap between the realms of policy and academe became wider.⁷ On consequence was that scholarly journals and academic journals came to have much less in common and they focused on publishing articles that would appeal to their respective audiences.

In addition to these general trends, several factors make International Security unique as an academic journal that combines social science and policy relevance.

First, International Security is distinctive among academic journals of international relations because its editorial headquarters are at a graduate school of public policy and public administration, the Harvard Kennedy School. The journalalways has been based at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, which was founded by Paul Doty and since 1978 has been located at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, a major venue for the study of contemporary national and international policy questions. The Belfer Center began as the Program on Science and International Affairs and then became the Center for Science and International Affairs. One of the program’s initial purposes was to develop a new cadre of specialists in arms control and national security. Early issues of International Security explained that the program’s “major focus is the study of international security problems and their policy implications.”

International Security’s interest in policy-relevant research reflects its institutional location. One would expect a journal based at a public policy school to publish more policy-relevant articles. The situation is more complicated, however, because the Belfer Center has encouraged social science research and provided many fellowships to political scientists. International Security is part of the International Security Program at the Belfer Center, which is one of several research centers in Harvard’s Kennedy School. The center is the successor to the Program on Science and International Affairs (PSIA), which was based in Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences. International Security was founded by PSIA in 1976, when PSIA was still in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. PSIA became the Center for Science and International Affairs (CSIA) when it moved to the Kennedy School in 1978. CSIA became the Belfer Center in 1997. Despite being based in a public policy school, the leadership of the Belfer Center and its International Security Program has included many political scientists, including Center Directors Joseph Nye and Graham Allison and International Security Program Faculty Chair Stephen M. Walt. The long-time director of the International Security Program, Steven E. Miller, received his PhD from the Fletcher School at Tufts University, but taught in MIT’s Political Science Department. The editors of International Security have often been political scientists. In addition, a large proportion of the International Security Program’s predoctoral and postdoctoral fellows have been political scientists. The overall result has been that International Security often publishes research by social scientists—particularly political scientists—on topics of contemporary policy relevance. Few other journals have a similar mix of institutional influences.

Second, International Security has been fortunate to have the resources to acquire, edit, and promote articles. The journal receives income from print and electronic subscriptions, including JSTOR and Project Muse, and payments for permission to reprint articles. More important, it can rely on institutional support from the Belfer Center, which benefits from an endowment originally provided by the Ford Foundation and later supplemented with support from Robert and Renée Belfer. International Security generally has had an editor who has had no teaching obligations and who has been able to devote much of his or her time to the journal, although the amount of time officially designated for the journal has varied from editor to editor. Over the years, the journal’s editors have thus been able to invest the time necessary to identify promising manuscripts, including when they are presented at conferences and seminars, and to advise authors on how to make significant revisions to accepted manuscripts and leading contenders for publication. International Security also has had an in-house manuscript editor with the expertise necessary to work closely with authors to improve the clarity and organization of the journal’s articles. In addition to the journal’s staff, the Belfer Center maintains a communications office that publicizes International Security articles and helps authors to publish op-ed articles in newspapers and to disseminate their ideas in other media.

Third, International Security has benefited from continuity of location and of key personnel. Unlike some journals that rotate from one host institution to another, International Security always has been based at the Belfer Center and its predecessor institutions. Steven E. Miller has played a central editorial role for over 40 years. Other staff members have had long tenures. As a result, the journal’s editorial philosophy has remained stable and there have been no periodic attempts to “reinvent the wheel.”

Finally, International Security is distinguished from some academic journals of international relations because it is not sponsored and published by an academic association. Journals such as International Studies Quarterly and others that are published for the International Studies Association periodically rotate their editorial teams and are subject to control by their parent associations. World Politics and International Organization, for example, are among the journals that have had an independent status similar to International Security’s. World Politics, which has been based at Princeton University for years, resembles International Security in that it is not affiliated with a professional organization and has remained at the same location, but it has had a very different history.⁸

Overall, International Security is distinctive because of a mix of structural and personal factors. Above all, however, it has been the choices made by the journal’s editorial leadership that made International Security stand out from other journals.⁹

Learning from the Experience of International Security

This paper draws on the experience of International Security to explore how academic articles may be relevant to policy discussions. There is one obvious potential objection to this approach. From a methodological perspective, focusing on International Security may seem to be a case of “looking under the light.”¹⁰ As a former editor of the journal, I naturally tend to think of articles that were published in International Security. I am likely to know more about those articles than articles published in other journals.

There are at least three reasons why examining the record of International Security is a good way to explore what policy-relevant scholarship can accomplish.

First, examining how, if at all, International Security articleshave contributed to policy discussions is an excellent way of assessing the plausibility of the proposition that scholarly articles can be policy relevant. Given that International Security has adopted an editorial policy that emphasizes policy relevance, there should be some evidence that the journal’s articles have contributed to policy discussions. If the journal fails this “easy” test, it would be grounds for doubting whether scholarly articles can have policy-relevance.¹¹

Second, International Security has a fairly long history. The journal has been in existence since 1976 and has published more than a thousand articles. Moreover, the international system and the field of international security both have changed significantly since the journal was founded. Thus International Security offers a large database of articles and the potential for interesting comparisons over time.

Third, International Security has adopted policies and practices that encourage the publication of policy-relevant articles in the journal and the dissemination of the main ideas of those articles to the widest possible audience. Examining these policies and practices may yield lessons that could be applied by other journals that want to increase their contribution to policy discussions.

The Evolution of International Security: Editorial Philosophy and Policy Relevance

International Security always has emphasized policy relevance. The commitment of International Security to policy relevance reflects the vision of the journal’s founder and first chairman of the Editorial Board, Paul Doty, a biochemist and science adviser to the Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Nixon administrations. The editorial philosophy offered in the journal’s inaugural issue began by referring to a “growing debate concerning the soundness and direction of international security policies in the United States and abroad.” The editors noted that the first issue of International Security “offers a combination of professional and policy-relevant articles that we believe will contribute to the analysis of particular security problems.”¹²

Since its founding in 1976, the journal’s editorial approach and balance between academic theory and policy analysis has varied.¹³ During its first five years, International Security published articles that were generally similar to the contents of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Policy (i.e., policy advocacy, often with little or no documentation) except that the International Security articles focused almost entirely on security issues. Most articles were written by established or aspiring policymakers from the United States and other countries. Prominent scholars, including Hedley Bull, Hans Morgenthau, Thomas Schelling, and Bernard Brodie appeared in the journal’s early issues, but they were outnumbered by nonacademic authors. Articles tended to be relatively short, with many falling into the 3,000–5000-word range.

The relatively low representation of academic authors in the early issues of International Security reflected the journal’s editorial philosophy and the editorial priorities of its initial editorial team, but it also was due to the relative absence of security studies scholars from major university departments. Many of the leading figures from the early years of international security studies in the United States did not train a successor generation of scholars. Their students often opted for government service or joined research institutions (“think tanks”). The intense debate over the Vietnam War also made security studies unpopular in many universities. It was not until the late 1970s and early 1980s that the “center of gravity” in security studies “clearly shifted back toward academe.”¹⁴

In the early 1980s, International Security gradually began to publish longer research articles by academic authors. During his 1981–84 tenure as managing editor, Steven E. Miller sought out article manuscripts from the emerging generation of security studies scholars, many of whom were trained as political scientists and became professors at leading universities.¹⁵ Most of these articles consisted primarily of policy analysis, but some included the development and application of social science theories to contemporary and historical security problems.¹⁶ These articles served as models of rigorous and relevant research, with careful documentation. Miller also began to publish major articles by historians, including research that reconsidered the history of the Cold War and U.S. national security policy.¹⁷ These trends continued when Stephen Van Evera, the first political scientist to serve as managing editor, took the helm at the journal between 1984 and 1987. During Van Evera’s tenure, the journal continued to primarily feature in-depth policy analysis articles, but also published a growing number of articles by historians¹⁸ and several articles that addressed broader theoretical questions, such as the sources of military effectiveness and whether coups lead to political instability.¹⁹ To balance the longer policy analysis articles, the journal published “Policy Focus” sections of commissioned shorter policy-oriented articles on a given topic.²⁰

The evolution of International Security did not occur in isolation. After a long period of decline, security studies scholarship revived in leading U.S. universities and a new generation of scholars—particularly political scientists—entered the field and began to publish their research.²¹ Other journals of security studies, including the Journal of Strategic Studies, Security Studies, the Journal of Global Security Studies, and the European Journal of International Security were founded, along with other journals that focused on specialized topics (e.g., terrorism) in security studies or security in particular regions. The Cornell Studies in Security Affairs book series created more opportunities for the publication of book-length manuscripts with topics and methods similar to International Security articles.²²

The end of the Cold War had a profound effect on the amount of policy-relevant international relations theory that was featured in International Security. During the period of intense U.S.-Soviet conflict, the political dimensions of the superpower relationship remained relatively static. International Security articles thus tended to often focus on U.S. and Soviet military capabilities and strategies. With the end of the Cold War, the composition of articles in International Security changed, for at least four reasons. First, political questions that had been “frozen” during the Cold War re-emerged. One of the most prominent questions was how the domestic political systems of countries in the former Soviet Union and East Central Europe would change. Second, theories drawn from political science often seemed to provide insights into questions related to the effects of potential changes in the structure of the international political system, the international implications of changes in internal political systems, and the political conditions for ending internal conflict, as well as.²³

Instead of relying on techniques of defense analysis and net assessment that had been most useful for addressing the major military questions of the Cold War, authors found that many more theories from political science became applicable. Third, the foreign policy choices available to the United States were no longer limited to variations on the theme of containment. There could be a wide-ranging debate on the future of U.S. grand strategy. Finally, the emerging generation of security studies scholars, many of whom had been trained as political scientists, were eager to publish their theoretical insights in International Security—just as those insights seemed to hold promise for explaining the post-Cold War world.

As the Soviet Union weakened and then disintegrated, International Security published several seminal articles that applied international relations theory to predict the major features of the post-Cold War world and to recommend alternative grand strategies for the United States. As democracy spread in the former Soviet bloc and beyond, many International Security articles explored the relationship between the apparent democratic peace and the changing international system. At the same time, internal conflict became one of the most prevalent forms of war. International Security began to receive more submissions from authors who may not have been interested in the military dimensions of the U.S.-Soviet rivalry but whose research explored the conditions for peace and the prevention of war more generally.

After the terrorist attacks of September 2001, the journal’s editorial agenda further broadened.²⁴ Terrorism became a more significant issue, as did an even more extensive range of questions related to internal conflict and political instability. At the same time, the rise of China and signs that the unipolar era of U.S. primacy was coming to an end prompted the publication of many articles that sought to understand China’s capabilities and behavior or used international relations theory to understand the implications of the changing structure of the international system. Global security issues related to, for example, the spread of nuclear weapons or the implications of climate change became more salient in the journal’s pages.²⁵ International Security authors devoted more attention to the conditions for peace and alternatives to violence.²⁶ Articles in the journal explored new hypotheses about the political and social causes of conflict—including the role of brideprice—that were ignored during the Cold War.²⁷

Over the past forty-five years, changes in international politics, the growth of international security studies in academe, and the evolution of the journal’s editorial philosophy have increased the range of policy-relevant research and the amount of international relations theory published in International Security. Compared to its early years, the journal’s authors are much more likely to be social scientists. Most recent issues of International Security feature a mix of in-depth policy analysis, applications of international relations theory to important issues in security policy—particularly the policies of the United States—and attempts to develop and test theories related to questions of international security studies and international politics more generally.

Recognizing that academic theories often have policy implications, the journal has adopted a broad definition of policy-relevant research. To be policy relevant, as seen by the editors, an article need not focus on a major current issue facing the United States or another country or offer a detailed set of policy recommendations. Articles that explore theoretical questions almost always have policy relevance.²⁸ Theories that attempt to predict when conventional invasions will succeed may yield lessons for the acquisition and deployment of military forces. Hypotheses on the conditions for stable nuclear deterrence may guide decisions on the number and type of nuclear weapons and delivery systems to acquire. Explanations of the rise and fall of terrorist groups may have implications for U.S. counterterrorism policy. Theories of inadvertent or accidental military escalation are likely to be relevant to the design of command-and-control arrangements in emerging nuclear powers. Scholarly studies of when transitions to democracy become violent may provide insights into when and how to hold elections in democratizing countries. Even more general theories of international relations may offer clues to the overall strategic context in which countries make decisions about their security.

The Many Purposes of Policy-Relevant Scholarship

There is an idealized vision of how a journal article influences government policy. This vision begins with the publication of an article that recommends a new policy. The article receives a lot of attention and generates much discussion. The government then announces that it is adopting the policy recommended in the article. The article then achieves everlasting fame, as does the author. This vision may have been influenced by George Kennan’s famous 1947 Foreign Affairs “X” article, “The Sources of Soviet Conduct,” which was credited with laying the foundation for the U.S. policy of containment of the Soviet Union during the Cold War.²⁹ Kennan argued that patient, long-term U.S. efforts to “contain” the Soviet Union would eventually lead to the emergence of a more benign government in Moscow. Henry Kissinger later wrote that “George Kennan came as close to authoring the diplomatic doctrine of his era as any diplomat in our history.”³⁰

There are at least two significant problems with this interpretation of Kennan’s “X” article. First, the article was written by a serving government official who had held several diplomatic posts, including counselor in the U.S. embassy in Moscow, and had just been appointed director of the State Department’s Policy Planning Staff. In his official positions in 1946 and 1947, Kennan actively sought to advance his recommendations inside the U.S. government. The “X” article thus was not a case of a social scientist publishing a policy-relevant journal article and thereby influencing government policy. It was a case of a government official attempting to explain and influence policy by publishing an article that would contribute to the public debate.

Second, by the time Kennan’s “The Sources of Soviet Conduct” was published in Foreign Affairs,U.S. policy toward the Soviet Union already reflected many of the ideas in the article. In February 1946, while serving as counselor in the U.S. embassy in Moscow, Kennan had sent the State Department a long telegram that included much analysis similar to the “X” article. The telegram was circulated widely among U.S. policymakers and had considerable influence. Kennan’s article thus served more to explain current policy than to propose a new policy. The “X” article also contained important ambiguities, such as whether its recommendation that the United States oppose the Soviet Union with “counterforce” called for military encirclement of the Soviet Union. Ironically, foreign policy commentator Walter Lippmann saw the “X” article as part of the case for the Truman Doctrine, even though in Kennan had opposed that policy on the grounds that it offered an excessive open-ended U.S. pledge to “support free peoples” who were confronting Soviet pressure. Kennan himself later claimed that his recommendations had been misunderstood and that the U.S. policy of containment was not what he had intended. Nevertheless, he had coined the term “containment” and that term was used to describe U.S. policy for decades.³¹

In my experience at International Security, not one of the journal’s articles has had the sort of single-handed, immediate, and profound impact on government policy that many observers have attributed, rightly or wrongly, to the “X” article. I am not aware of any case in which the U.S. secretary of defense, for example, has announced that the United States has adopted a new policy after policymakers read and were persuaded by the recommendations published in International Security. Authors whose articles had appeared in the journal would sometimes report that their work was being read by, for example, National Security Council staff members, but it was never clear if these authors were exaggerating the impact of their work or engaging in wishful thinking about its influence. Given that authors most likely tend to exaggerate the influence of their ideas, it is particularly telling that no International Security authors boasted that their articles had shaped U.S. foreign or security policy.³²

More generally, few journal or magazine articles by social scientists appear to have had a major impact on public policy. One exception might be the “broken windows” approach to preventing crime, which provided the basis for community policing strategies in New York and other cities.³³ This approach is based on the idea that enforcement against low-level offenses is necessary to prevent serious crimes. Under New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, “broken windows” became associated with “stop-and-frisk” police activities that entailed harassment of people of color and were found unconstitutional. In 2022, New York Mayor Eric Adams appeared to resume a variant of the “broken windows” approach in the form of an initiative to enforce “quality-of-life matters” such as public drinking and dice games.³⁴ The article that introduced the “broken windows” theory appeared in The Atlantic, not a scholarly journal, but it was based on academic research by the authors and others.

Even if articles that can be directly linked to major changes in public policy are rare, there are many reasons why scholars should continue to undertake and publish policy-relevant research. Such articles can serve many valuable purposes, including shaping the overall contours of discussion, gradually promoting alternative policies, challenging the conventional wisdom, educating and influencing future policymakers, encouraging and advancing future academic research, and helping authors to get appointed to government positions.

Shaping the Overall Contours of Discussion

Policy-relevant articles may shape the overall contours of discussion among the informed public, the policy community, and policymakers. Two of the best-known articles in this category are Samuel Huntington’s articulation of the “Clash of Civilizations” in Foreign Affairs³⁵ and Francis Fukuyama’s declaration of the “End of History” in The National Interest.³⁶Although neither Huntington nor Fukuyama published their articles in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, they both wrote as social scientists and subsequently developed their ideas in a more academic form in books. (Huntington also conducted a seminar at Harvard’s Faculty Club and explained how his “Clash of Civilizations” article would have been different if he had written it as a scholarly article.) A third example of an article by a social scientist that influenced the overall discussion of policy is Michael Doyle’s “Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs.”³⁷ Doyle introduced and made prominent the “Democratic Peace,” the idea that democracies do not go to war with one another. This idea inspired an outpouring of subsequent scholarship developing and criticizing explanations for the apparent peace between democracies.³⁸ The scholarly literature on the democratic peace also influenced U.S. policy discussions and U.S. efforts to spread democracy. In his 1994 State of the Union address, President Bill Clinton invoked the academic “democratic peace” finding as an important part of the case for his administration’s efforts to spread democracy: “Ultimately, the best strategy to ensure our security and to build a durable peace is to support the advance of democracy elsewhere. Democracies don’t attack each other.” Promoting democracy became an integral part of the Clinton administration’s strategy of “engagement and enlargement.”³⁹

Gradually Promoting Alternative Policies

Over time, policy-relevant articles may gradually change the debate on foreign and security policy. Achieving influence can be a “long game” in which new ideas are gradually adopted by policymakers.⁴⁰ Even if no individual article contributes to a significant change in policy, many articles that make a similar argument may have a cumulative effect. One example is the growing number of articles that recommend that the United States adopt a strategy of restraint or offshore balancing. A decade or two ago, calls for U.S. strategic restraint probably would have been dismissed as advocacy of isolationism. The publication of many serious articles making this argument in prominent and respected journals may have given restraint and offshore balancing more intellectual legitimacy in the policy community. International Security has published several articles that urge the United States to reduce its international commitments and adopt a more restrained grand strategy.⁴¹

Challenging the Conventional Wisdom

Policy-relevant articles can be particularly useful as challenges to established ideas and widespread beliefs that underpin national security policies. Even if such articles do not change policy, they force an explicit discussion of assumptions and may at least motivate proponents of the challenged policies to offer better justifications. International Security has a long tradition of publishing challenges to the conventional wisdom. Most of these articles have criticized U.S. policies. A few prominent examples include John Mearsheimer’s critique of the Reagan administration’s Maritime Strategy,⁴² Malcolm Chalmers and Lutz Unterseher’s skeptical analysis of Soviet tank performance,⁴³ and Theodore Postol’s analysis of the Patriot missile’s performance against Iraqi Scud missiles during the 1990–91 Gulf War.⁴⁴ Each of these articles generated a vociferous response from advocates of the U.S. government policy or position. All three articles challenged institutions such as the Department of Defense or the Raytheon Corporation that had a vested interest in rejecting or discrediting the article’s conclusions.

John Mearsheimer’s 1986 analysis of the U.S. Maritime Strategy offered a comprehensive and compelling critique of one of the central elements of the Reagan administration’s strategic initiatives. “A Strategic Misstep” explored the multiple and shifting rationales for the proclaimed Maritime Strategy, concluding that aspects of that strategy, such as using U.S. submarines to attack Soviet ballistic missile submarines, would be destabilizing and that the strategy would detract from deterrence of the Soviet Union in Europe. Mearsheimer’s article was a direct challenge to the strategic concepts associated with America’s quest to build a 600-ship navy. Mearsheimer’s initial 1985 presentation of the paper provoked much concern inside the U.S. Navy, prompting the chief of naval operations to try to counter Mearsheimer’s argument by issuing a declassified version of the Maritime Strategy.⁴⁵ U.S. Secretary of the Navy John F. Lehman took Mearsheimer’s critique of the Maritime Strategy seriously and thus debated Mearsheimer on the MacNeil-Lehrer NewsHour in July1987.⁴⁶

In “Is There a Tank Gap?” Malcolm Chalmers and Lutz Unterseher offered a detailed assessment of the relative strength of NATO and Warsaw Pact tank forces in Central Europe during the final years of the Cold War. They concluded that Soviet tanks were qualitatively inferior to their Western counterparts. Their article was a particularly important challenge to the American new media’s widespread belief that the Warsaw Pact enjoyed significant conventional superiority.⁴⁷ The Chalmers and Unterseher article stimulated a vigorous debate in the pages of International Security.⁴⁸Vehement replies also appeared in publications such as the Wall Street Journal.⁴⁹ In retrospect, the poor combat performance of Soviet/Russian tanks in the 1991 Gulf War and the war in Ukraine would appear to vindicate the arguments in “Is There a Tank Gap?”

Theodore Postol’s argument that the Patriot missile had shot down few, if any, Iraqi Scud missiles, challenged post-Gulf War claims that the Patriot missile had successfully intercepted almost all of the Scud missiles that it had engaged. Postol’s article, which relied on analysis of reports of ground damage from Scud missiles that were engaged by Patriot missiles, cast doubt on broader claims that the record of the Patriot system in the Gulf War demonstrated U.S. technological prowess and revealed the potential of defenses against ballistic missiles. Although some commentators argued that the performance of the Patriot missile suggested that the Strategic Defense Initiative undertaken by the Reagan administration could lead to deployment of effective defenses against strategic missiles carrying nuclear warheads, Postol contended that Patriot’s performance did not support these claims about strategic missile defense and also revealed the major challenges facing theatre missile defense. Postol’s article provoked a particularly long and vehement response from the Raytheon Corporation, the manufacturer of the Patriot system.⁵⁰ A decade later, however, U.S. Secretary of Defense William Cohen acknowledged that the Patriot missile system “didn’t work” in the Gulf War.⁵¹

Educating and Influencing Future Policymakers

Policy-relevant articles may have an important impact if they are used for teaching purposes and read widely in institutions of higher learning. First, policy-relevant articles, particularly those that offer detailed policy analyses of important and enduring issues, can help undergraduate students to learn how to think about public policy and to become more informed citizens. Second, policy-relevant articles, particularly in-depth policy analysis, can help to train students who may join the foreign policy and national security community.

It is difficult to measure the influence of articles that policymakers read while they were students, but policymakers often act on the basis of ideas and implicit theories that are drawn from what they learned in college or graduate school. Policy-relevant articles are among the most significant sources of those ideas.

International Security has attempted to publish articles that will be assigned for undergraduate and graduate courses. The journal’s editors edit articles to make them as accessible as possible to students. A rule of thumb has been that International Security articles should be written so that an advanced undergraduate student in political science can easily read and understand them. It is hard to gather data on how widely International Security articles are assigned in universities, but anecdotal evidence suggests that they are on many syllabi. For many years, the journal attempted to make it easier for faculty to assign International Security articles by assembling related articles into anthologies (“International Security Readers) published by MIT Press for use in courses. These anthologies sold well for many years, but in recent years more faculty have assigned digital versions of International Security articles, reducing the market for the International Security Readers.

Encouraging and Advancing Future Academic Research

Regardless of their impact on policy debates, policy-relevant articles in scholarly journals can help to encourage and advance further academic research on policy questions in at least two ways. First, such articles may serve as models for graduate students and others who will eventually comprise the next generation of academic researchers. Articles that offer policy analysis that motivate students to think more deeply about policy issues and teach them how to prepare their own thoughtful and persuasive analyses, especially if they are assigned to students at the war colleges or schools of public policy, national security, or foreign policy. If the field of international security studies hopes to develop cadres of scholars who will conduct policy-relevant research, it needs to make clear that leading scholars are publishing such research in major articles.

Second, policy-relevant articles by social scientists can contribute to cumulative scholarship and research. Many problems in, for example, U.S. national security policy are long-term issues, not matters for short-term decisions. For decades, research in international security studies has explored topics such as deterrence; innovation; nuclear proliferation; the causes of war and peace; escalation; the economic impact of military spending; and the influence of domestic factors on national security policy. Policy-relevant articles on these and other topics serve as a basis for further research. Scholars do not have to “reinvent the wheel” every time they consider these questions. Instead, they can draw on published articles that present research findings, survey the existing literature, and provide ample documentation. International Security has been moving closer to the realization of the founding editors’ hope that the journal would “contribute to the disciplined discourse that distinguishes a profession.”⁵²

Helping Authors to Get Appointed to Government Positions

Policy-relevant journal articles may serve the purpose of helping their authors to get appointed to government positions in which they can influence policy, even if the articles do not have a direct impact on policy. For nonacademic authors who aspire to become appointed officials at, for example, the National Security Council, State Department, or Defense Department, publications may be a primary way to become involved in policy discussions and attract attention. A policy-relevant article communicates the author’s position and reveals their communication skills and analytical abilities.⁵³ Academic authors also may rely on the attention generated by their publications to increase their chances of being appointed to government positions, although they may publish articles primarily to advance their prospects of receiving tenure or getting promoted.

There are several ways in which publication of a policy-relevant article may help an author to be appointed to serve in government.

First, an article may be, in effect, an “audition” for a particular position, an opportunity for the author to articulate and defend the policies that they would attempt to implement if they were appointed. Such an article may reveal the author’s knowledge of an issue, their skills as an advocate, the merits of their recommended policies, and whether their recommendations are consistent with the policy preferences of an existing or incoming administration.

Second, an article may be part of an author’s overall effort to appear active and visible in policy discussions. Instead of publishing a single “audition” article, an aspiring government official might try to publish multiple articles in prominent journals so that their views are ubiquitous and their name is inescapable.

Third, an article may call attention to an author’s views, even if it was not written and published for the primary purpose of promoting the author’s candidacy to be appointed to a government position. One of the most prominent examples of such an article is Jeane Kirkpatrick’s “Dictatorships and Double Standards,” which appeared in the November 1979 issue of Commentary magazine. Ronald Reagan reportedly was so impressed with the article that he met Kirkpatrick, enlisted her as part of his 1980 presidential campaign team, and after his election appointed her as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.⁵⁴

Fourth, policy-relevant articles may play a long-term role in developing the careers of authors who eventually hope to hold positions in government. An article in a prominent and well-regarded journal can launch the career of a policy analyst or scholar who may eventually seek a government appointment.

Publishing policy-relevant articles is not the only way that candidates for government positions try to increase their chances of being appointed. Aspiring officials may rely on their prior experience or reputation, networks of personal connections, or their service to a presidential campaign.

Over the years, an extraordinary number of International Security authors have been appointed to U.S. government positions related to foreign policy and national security.⁵⁵ A few authors have been appointed to posts in foreign governments or international organizations. Some of these authors and others also have played a more informal policy role as consultants or members of advisory boards. It is difficult to assess whether these articles in International Security were instrumental in helping the authors to get appointed to government positions, but they probably played a role.

In some cases, International Security authors have been appointed to one or more important policymaking positions after the journal published their articles early in their careers and several times thereafter. Colin Kahl, who in April 2021 became under secretary of defense for policy after having served previously as deputy assistant to President Obama and national security advisor to Vice President Biden, and deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East, published an article in International Security very early in his academic career and another before he entered the Obama administration.⁵⁶ Michael McFaul, who served as U.S. ambassador to Russia, 2012–2014, also published one of his first scholarly articles in International Security and went on to publish other articles related to Russia and the former Soviet Union.⁵⁷ After publishing one of his first scholarly articles and three subsequent analyses of U.S.-China security relations, Thomas Christensen in 2006 was appointed deputy assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs with responsibility for relations with China, Taiwan, and Mongolia.⁵⁸

Several International Security authors have published articles on the topics that shortly thereafter became their areas of responsibility in government. Elisa Harris served on the National Security Council (NSC) staff from 1993 to 2001 as director for nonproliferation and export controls, with primary responsibility for coordinating U.S. policy on chemical, biological and missile proliferation issues. Her position was closely related to an important article she had published in International Security.⁵⁹ Jessica Stern served on the NSC staff from 1994 to 1995 as the director for Russian, Ukrainian, and Eurasian Affairs after publishing a relevant 1993 International Security article.⁶⁰ Stuart Kaufman held the same NSC position in 1999 after having published a related article in the journal.⁶¹ Victor Cha published a 2002 International Security article that outlined his ideas for dealing with North Korea.⁶² In December 2004 he joined the NSC staff as director for Asian Affairs, with responsibility for South Korea and North Korea, among other countries. He also served as deputy head of the U.S. delegation for the Six Party Talks on North Korea’s nuclear program.

Many International Security authors have served in the administrations of Democratic presidents, but the overall pattern is bipartisan. Eliot Cohen, for example, was counselor in the Department of State during the George W. Bush administration. Several of his early scholarly articles appeared in International Security in the 1980s.⁶³ Amanda Rothschild, who published her first scholarly article in International Security, served in the Trump administration as a special assistant to the president and senior national security speechwriter at the White House and then as a senior advisor on the State Department’s Policy Planning Staff under Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.⁶⁴ Peter Feaver, who published in International Security early in his academic career, held NSC posts in the Clinton administration and the George W. Bush administration.⁶⁵

Some International Security authors have served in governments other than the United States. Roland Paris, for example, has held posts as senior advisor to the prime minister of Canada (2015–16), policy advisor, Privy Council Office (Foreign and Defence Policy Secretariat), Government of Canada (2004–05) and policy advisor, Department of Foreign Affairs (North America Bureau), Government of Canada (2003–04).⁶⁶ Stephen Stedman has held various posts in international and nongovernmental organizations, including a 2003–04 appointment as research director of the United Nations High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, during which he was a principal drafter of the Panel’s report, A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility. He subsequently served as assistant secretary-general and special advisor to the secretary-general of the United Nations, with responsibility for working with governments to adopt the Panel’s recommendations.⁶⁷

The “Cult of the Irrelevant” and International Security

In recent years, several scholars have argued that a “cult of the irrelevant” is preventing social scientists from engaging in policy-relevant research.⁶⁸ This argument suggests that academic incentives have driven international relations scholars to focus on methodological questions and basic theoretical research that has little, if any, connection to contemporary policy questions.

The cult of the irrelevant may have had a long-term effect of reducing the amount of policy-relevant scholarship in international security studies. It also may have contributed to a wider divide between scholars and policymakers.⁶⁹ Its influence on International Security is less clear, however. The journal generally has received a sufficient number of manuscripts that qualify as policy-relevant scholarship. In fact, some authors appear to have overestimated the journal’s interest in policy-relevant submissions. For many years International Security received a plethora of submissions of short, policy-oriented, atheoretical papers that would be more appropriate for journals such as Foreign Affairs and Foreign Policy. To be sure, International Security also has received many submissions of academic papers that focus on narrow methodological, conceptual, or theoretical issues that are largely divorced from current or enduring policy questions. The journal has rejected many such manuscripts from scholars who appear to be in the grip of the cult of the irrelevant. Fortunately, the journal has received—and accepted—many submissions that are neither narrow academic studies nor excessively brief discussions of policy,

The ability of International Security to attract a significant number of policy-relevant article submissions almost certainly reflects its anomalous position among journals of international relations. Because International Security stands out as the international relations journal that publishes the highest proportion of policy-relevant articles, scholars who write such articles probably are more likely to submit their work to International Security than to any other journal.

For the most part, authors of articles accepted by International Security do not seem to have been constrained by a cult of the irrelevant, even if some submissions have fallen into this category. Many authors emphasize the policy relevance of their analysis and research findings. When asked by the editors to revise their articles to emphasize policy-relevant material, authors have cooperated. It has been the standard practice of International Security to ask authors to include a discussion of policy implications and recommendations in the concluding sections of their article. My colleagues and I recall only a handful of cases in which an author resisted an editorial recommendation to offer policy prescriptions or policy implications in an article’s conclusion.

Problems of Promoting and Publicizing Policy-Relevant Journal Articles

Although the cult of the irrelevant may not have prevented International Security from publishing policy-relevant scholarship, academic incentives may limit the amount of time that authors are willing to devote to promoting their articles. An article’s policy implications or prescriptions may be overlooked or ignored unless they are presented in a concise readable format that can reach a wide audience. Most academic articles, including those in International Security, are unlikely to appeal to a wide audience. Many potential readers will be deterred by an article’s length, academic jargon, and methodological or theoretical complexity. To have an impact on the broader public debate and to reach policymakers, the article’s arguments need to be offered in a short form or to be delivered directly to government officials.⁷⁰

A junior professor who hopes to receive tenure often will be far more interested in publishing their next article or book instead of working with a journal’s editorial staff to promote an article that is already in print. Receiving tenure is more likely to depend on the number of articles published in prominent scholarly journals than on whether the articles receive attention in the popular press or from policymakers. Given these incentives, and faced with a time bind, untenured faculty members may do relatively little to call attention to their policy recommendations by conducting briefings for governmental officials, publishing shorter articles that present their findings and arguments in an accessible form, and otherwise engaging in media outreach.

Authors who are tenured senior faculty members may feel a less desperate need to “publish or perish” to satisfy a tenure committee, but their status in the field, salary, and promotions will depend on their publications. Many senior professors will have multiple research projects and professional commitments. They may thus decide not to set aside much time for promoting or publishing their work. It is even possible that some senior professors might overestimate their reputation and importance and (mistakenly) believe that their work will receive much attention even if they do little or nothing to promote to it.

International Security has a long tradition of trying to promote its articles and their key ideas. The journal’s editorial team and other Belfer Center staff members help authors to write and place op-ed articles. The journal has encouraged authors to publish shorter versions of their International Security articles in publications such as Foreign Affairs and the Atlantic—preferably with a reference to the original International Security article. The journal has worked with authors so that their articles can be featured by blogs such as the Monkey Cage. For many years, International Security published short versions of policy-relevant articles as Policy Brief papers. The journal has distributed copies of articles to scholars, journalists, and others who are particularly likely to read and cite them. International Security and the Belfer Center more generally are active online and on social media. The journal’s editorial staff also encourages authors to present their published work at seminars and conferences. These efforts help to gain more attention for International Security articles, but their scope ultimately depends on the willingness of authors to invest a lot of time in promoting and publicizing their work.⁷¹

Policy-Relevance and Rankings for Impact and Citations

Most prominent academic journals are ranked annually on the basis of the number of times that their articles are cited. Although the ranking systems vary, most are based on the number (and sometimes quality) of citations in a given year. The publishers and editors of journals generally prefer to have a high ranking⁷².

It is possible that publishing a high proportion of policy-relevant articles will tend to reduce a journal’s Impact Factor or other indicators of citation counts. Academic authors may be more likely to cite scholarly articles that offer a theoretical or methodological contribution than articles that attempt to influence national policy. Scholars may be drawn to such articles because of their own academic research interests. Scholars are also more likely than, for example, journalists or government officials, to publish articles with references that cite other published works. Moreover, in many cases, a theoretical or methodological argument will be cited for many years, because it is more enduring than an analysis of current policy. Many of the most frequently cited International Security articles have made important theoretical arguments. Examples include John Mearsheimer, “The False Promise of International Institutions,” William Wohlforth, “The Stability of a Unipolar World,” Kenneth Waltz, “Structural Realism after the Cold War,” Roland Paris, “Human Security: Paradigm Shift or Hot Air?” and Alexander Cooley and James Ron, “The NGO Scramble: Organizational Insecurity and the Political Economy of Transnational Action.” In each case, the article makes an enduring theoretical or conceptual contribution that is not likely to be quickly overtaken by events, even if the article is relevant to contemporary policy discussions.

John Mearsheimer’s “The False Promise of International Institutions” offers a comprehensive realist critique of the belief that international institutions can cause international peace and stability.⁷³ “The False Promise” debunks three variants of institutional theory: liberal internationalism, collective security, and critical theory. Mearsheimer’s article continues to be cited and assigned because it is a definitive counterpoint to the widespread and enduring belief that international institutions are a sure way to promote/facilitate peace and international cooperation.

William Wohlforth’s “The Stability of a Unipolar World” received much attention and has been cited frequently because it offers a theoretical argument that unipolar international systems can be stable, peaceful, and enduring.⁷⁴ The article’s argument challenged the views of international relations theorists who had concluded that unipolarity tends to be short-lived and prone to conflict, because other states will vigorously seek to balance against the leading power. It also contributed to an ongoing theoretical debate that had been stimulated by a 1964 article by Kenneth Waltz.⁷⁵ Moreover, this argument was timely, because it came during a period in which the international system appeared to be unipolar, with the United States as the sole superpower.

Kenneth Waltz’s “Structural Realism after the Cold War” was one of the final major theoretical contributions by a leading theorist of international relations.⁷⁶ Waltz’s article applies his own realist theory to international politics after the Cold War and also offered realist critiques of the purported importance of phenomena such as the democratic peace, economic interdependence, and international institutions. He unequivocally declares that structural realism “remains the basic theory of international politics.”⁷⁷

Roland Paris’s “Human Security: Paradigm Shift or Hot Air?” explores the concept of human security, which some scholars and policymakers embraced as a new approach to global security that would go beyond traditional notions of military force and the defense of states.⁷⁸ Paris examines definitions of “human security” and finds that concept is so vague and expansive that it is not very useful. Because the concept of a broader definition of security has enduring appeal, Paris’s article has been cited and assigned frequently.

Alexander Cooley and James Ron, “The NGO Scramble,” challenges the view that the proliferation of international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), including those that are involved in development projects and humanitarian aid, harkens the emergence of a global civil society and a more benign international system.⁷⁹ Drawing on organization theory, they argue that organizational insecurity, competitive pressures, and fiscal uncertainty can lead NGOs to engage in unproductive competition or to pursue inappropriate aid projects. Because of its wide applicability and enduring logic, their article has been cited frequently for over two decades.

It is not clear whether publishing policy-relevant articles has reduced the number of times that International Security articles are cited. The journal has consistently ranked at or near the top of the annual Web of Science/Journal Citation Reports Impact Factor rankings of international relations journals. Since 1996, International Security has ranked first eleven times, second eight times, and always has been in the top five. It also has ranked highly in the SCIMAGO and CiteScore rankings of political science and international relations journals and the Google Scholar rankings of journals of military studies.

The consistently high rankings of Foreign Affairs for Impact Factor also suggest that policy-relevant articles are cited relatively frequently. Foreign Affairs does not publish scholarly articles that focus on theory or methods. Virtually everything that appears in its pages is related to contemporary policy issues, with a particular focus on U.S. foreign policy. Nevertheless, Foreign Affairs consistently ranks highly for Impact Factor, although it rarely places first or second in the rankings.⁸⁰

Further research is necessary to assess whether publishing policy-relevant articles causes journals to have lower rankings for Impact Factor or other citation rankings. Determining whether policy-relevant articles are cited less frequently than scholarly articles that focus primarily on methods and theories would require considerable research.

Conclusion

This paper has considered how scholarly research can be relevant to contemporary foreign and security policy issues. In seeking evidence for whether and how academic publications can influence policy—and for why scholars should publish policy-relevant articles—it has focused on the experience of International Security. That journal occupies an unusual place among scholarly journals. International Security’s editorial philosophy emphasizes the importance of policy-relevant research and policy-relevance is considered in the journal’s editorial decisions. The journal’s editorial team and other staff at Harvard’s Belfer Center, where the journal is based, attempt to promote International Security articles and their policy recommendations to a wide audience.

Several factors account for why International Security is essentially unique among international relations journals. First, International Security is hospitable to interdisciplinary policy-relevant research because it is based at research center at a public policy school that combines a focus on key security policy issues with support for political science research. Second, journal has emphasized policy relevance in it selection of articles and has encouraged authors to explain the policy implications of their research findings. The journal’s editorial team, which has demonstrated a high degree of continuity, has consistently embraced this editorial philosophy. Third, International Security has been fortunate to have the resources and staff support to edit articles to improve their clarity and to publicize and promote articles so that their conclusions reach a wide audience.

Although International Security occupies an unusual position among academic journals of international relations and thus may seem anomalous, there are three reasons for focusing on its contribution to policy-relevant scholarship. First, International Security provides an excellent “test case” to see if scholarly articles can contribute to policy discussions, given the journal’s long-standing commitment to policy relevance. If the articles in International Security have no impact on policy discussions, that would cast doubt on the potential for policy-relevant scholarship.

Second, looking at the articles published in International Security over the past few decades provides an opportunity to examine the different ways in which journal articles contribute to policy discussions. The evolution of International Security sheds light on how policy-relevant articles have changed over the past forty-five years and some of the ways in which such articles can contribute to policy discussions. My experience with the journal also reveals some of the challenges of persuading authors to try to disseminate their ideas and findings to the policy community.

Third, the journal’s experience may make it a model for other scholarly journals that aspire to publish more policy-relevant scholarship. Such journals may be able to emulate some of the practices of International Security.

Scholarly articles rarely, if ever, have an immediate impact on policy. George Kennan’s 1947 Foreign Affairs “X” article is sometimes seen as an example of an article that transformed U.S. foreign policy, but that article was published by a government official, not a scholar, and appeared after many of its ideas had been embraced by U.S. policymakers. Few, if any, articles in scholarly journals are read and acted upon by policymakers.

Scholarly articles may, however, have a long-term influence on policy discussions in many other ways. Two stand out as particularly important. In the first case, articles transmit ideas. In the second, they promote people who have ideas. First, articles can exert influence by being assigned to students. The ideas held by future policymakers are often shaped by the scholarly articles that they read in college, graduate school, or institutions such as the war colleges. It is difficult to document this long-lasting influence of these articles, not least because policymakers may have forgotten which articles they read as students, even if they remember and are influenced by the salient ideas in those articles. Nevertheless, further research, including interviews, could trace how the decisions of policymakers have reflected the worldview and theories that they learned from policy-relevant articles that they read while they were students.

Second, policy-relevant articles may help their authors get appointed to government positions in which they can influence policy. Publishing policy-relevant articles can establish a scholar’s reputation as an expert on a particular policy topic, publicize a scholar’s views, or bring a scholar to the attention of elected officials. Many International Security authors have been appointed to government positions after publishing one or more articles in the journal. In many cases, their official responsibilities have included topics that they addressed in their journal articles. Articles thus serve as a “credential” and an “audition” for scholars who aspire to serve in government positions and translate their ideas into policies. Further research might shed light on the relative importance of publications in appointments to government positions, the role of different journals, and whether this process has become more or less important over time.

Policy-relevant articles have influence in many other ways. Even if they do not have an immediate impact on government policy, they can influence the overall discussion of policy, develop alternative ideas, and challenge the conventional wisdom. Within academe, they can serve as models for research and contribute to cumulative scholarship.

In sum, policy-relevant articles serve many important purposes. Apart from International Security, relatively few journals publish many policy-relevant articles. But if I am right about the many important purposes that policy-relevant articles serve, that is all the more reason to try to overcome the cult of the irrelevant and to encourage more journals—and more scholars—to publish policy-relevant scholarship.

Sean M. Lynn-Jones was a member of the editorial team at the journal International Security for over thirty years before he retired at the beginning of 2019. He served as managing editor, 1987–1991, consulting editor, 1991–1993, and editor, 1994–2018. He is currently a member of the journal’s Editorial Board and an associate of the International Security Program at the Belfer Center, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. His articles have appeared in International Security, Security Studies, and Foreign Policy, and in many edited volumes.

Acknowledgments

For comments on a previous draft of this paper, the author thanks Mathew Burrows, Michael Desch, Šumit Ganguly, John Mearsheimer, David Montgomery, Stephen Van Evera, Lynn Jones and members of the Working Group on Conflict, Security, and Public Policy (CSPP) at the Belfer Center, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. The author is responsible for any errors and omissions that remain.

Notes

1
Note: Jack Hoagland, Amy Oakes, Eric Parajon, and Susan Peterson, “The Blind Men and the Elephant: Comparing the Study of International Security Across Journals, Security Studies, Vol. 29, No. 3 (June–July 2020), pp. 397, 425. Whether policy recommendations are offered in an article is not necessarily the best or only measure of policy relevance. An article’s policy relevance also might depend on whether the topic is important to policymakers. The presence of policy recommendations is, however, one indication of whether policy relevance is a key aspect of a journal’s editorial philosophy.
2
Note: Richard K. Betts, “Should Strategic Studies Survive?” World Politics, Vol. 50, No. 1 (October 1997), p. 32. Emphasis in original.
3
Note: There are many other journals in this category, including the European Journal of International Relations, International Affairs, the Review of International Studies, the Chinese Journal of International Politics, and Millennium. Journals of political science, such as the American Political Science Review and Political Science Quarterly, occasionally publish articles on topics in international security, but most of the articles in those journals are on other areas of political science.
4
Note: Although there has been a broad pattern of continuity, the content of Security Studies has been influenced by changes in the journal’s editorial leadership. After fourteen years at the helm of the journal, founding editor stepped aside and has been succeeded by several editors.
5
Note: Michael C. Desch, Cult of the Irrelevant: The Waning Influence of Social Science on National Security (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2019), p. 214. Desch also notes that, in particular, World Politics published fewer security-related articles after International Security was founded. See ibid., p. 215.
6
Note: As noted above, International Organization is an exception. That journal broadened its substantive content instead of remaining a journal of international political economy or international institutions.
7
Note: See Desch, Cult of the Irrelevant, particularly chapter 1 and the many sources cited in note 9.
8
Note: World Politics was a leading journal of security studies when it was founded as part of Yale University’s Institute of International Studies (IIS). In the 1950s, World Politics moved to Princeton when Yale President A. Whitney Griswold closed down IIS. See Desch, Cult of the Irrelevant, pp. 37 and 119.
9
Note: The editors of International Security are sometimes asked if the readership of International Security differs from that of other journals of international politics. It is difficult to answer this question. The most recent reader survey was included in the summer 1991 issue. Readers were invited to complete the survey and mail it to MIT Press, the journal’s publisher. Given that many readers now read various forms of electronic versions of articles in the journal, including a similar survey in the journal probably would not yield useful results. Even in 1991, the survey responses did not come from a random sample of readers, but from those who removed the survey form from the journal and mailed it in. As I recall, one of the most striking findings of that survey was that many or most International Security readers—or at least the ones who responded to the survey—were not prominent scholars but members of the public, including retired military officers and government officials, who took a strong interest in international politics.
10
Note: This expression comes from the story of the man who has lost his keys at night and searches under the streetlight as he tries to find them. When asked why he is looking under the streetlight instead of all the other places where his keys might be, he says, “Because that’s where the light is and it’s the only place where I can see.” The academic lesson of the story is that a scholar who focuses only on their own areas of knowledge—or looking only at the information that is readily available—can overlook important information.
11
Note: In social-science terms, I am selecting a case on an extreme value of the independent variable. This also could be seen as what Stephen Van Evera describes as a “hoop” test—an easy test that a theory should easily pass. Stephen Van Evera, Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1997), p. 31.
12
Note: “Foreword,” International Security, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Summer 1976), p. 2. One key issue is who decides which “particular security problems” deserve attention. Scholars may identify problems of academic interest but little policy relevance. Policymakers may identify problems, including short-term policy questions, that scholars cannot or will not analyze. Scholars also may fail to address the most salient contemporary security policy issues, possibly because professional incentives, including the availability of funding, steer scholars away from relevant and controversial issues. Relatively few international relations scholars, for example, assessed the domino theory in the 1950s or the strategic importance of Southeast Asia as the United States escalated its involvement in the war in Vietnam. I am indebted to Stephen Van Evera for his insights on this question. For a more general discussion of why academic research is not always relevant to contemporary security issues, see Desch, Cult of the Irrelevant.
13
Note: For a more detailed discussion of the evolution of the journal between 1976 and 2001, see Steven E. Miller, “International Security at Twenty-five: From One World to Another,” International Security, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Summer 2001), pp. 5–39.
14
Note: Stephen M. Walt, “The Renaissance of Security Studies,” International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 35, No. 2 (June 1991), pp. 216, 219
15
Note: Walt argues that International Security played an important role in reviving security studies in universities. “The Renaissance of Security Studies,” pp. 220–221. As a refereed journal, International Security provided an outlet for younger scholars. As the journal published an increasing number of peer-reviewed articles by academic authors, it acquired more scholarly legitimacy.
16
Note: See, in particular, John J. Mearsheimer, “Why the Soviets Can’t Win Quickly in Central Europe,” International Security, Vol. 7, No. 1 (Summer 1982), pp. 3–39; Barry R. Posen, “Inadvertent Nuclear War? Escalation and NATO’s Northern Flank,” International Security, Vol. 7, No. 2 (Fall 1982), pp. 28–54; and Stephen W. Van Evera, “The Cult of the Offensive and the Origins of the First World War,” International Security, Vol. 9, No. 1 (Summer 1984), pp. 58–107.
17
Note: The outstanding example is David Alan Rosenberg, “The Origins of Overkill: Nuclear Weapons and American Strategy, 1945–1960,” International Security, Vol. 7, No. 4 (Spring 1983), pp. 3–71.
18
Note: Marc Trachtenberg, “The Influence of Nuclear Weapons in the Cuban Missile Crisis,” International Security, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Summer 1985), pp. 137–163; John Lewis Gaddis, “The Long Peace: Elements of Stability in the Postwar International System,” International Security, Vol. 10. No. 4 (Spring 1986), pp. 99–142; and Holger H. Herwig, “Clio Deceived: Patriotic Self-Censorship in Germany After the Great War,” International Security, Vol. 12, No. 2 (Fall 1987), pp. 5–44. The Trachtenberg and Gaddis articles are notable for their attempts to contribute to a dialogue between historians and political scientists.
19
Note: Allan R. Millett, Williamson Murray, and Kenneth N. Watman, “The Effectiveness of Military Organizations,” International Security, Vol. 11 No. 1 (Summer 1986), pp. 37–71; Richard K. Betts and Samuel P. Huntington, “Dead Dictators and Rioting Mobs: Does the Demise of Authoritarian Rulers Lead to Political Instability?” International Security, Vol. 10, No. 3 (Winter 1985/86), pp. 112–146.
20
Note: These sections were later discontinued, because they took up space that could have been devoted to full-length peer-reviewed articles and they were too similar to the type of article that appeared in other journals that focused on current policy.
21
Note: See Walt, “The Renaissance of Security Studies.”
22
Note: Ibid. p. 221. Walt published his first book in the Cornell series in 1984 and later became one of the editors of the series.
23
Note: For examples of an analysis of the domestic political conditions for maintaining peace after internal conflict, see Aila M. Matanock, “Bullets for Ballots: Electoral Participation Provisions and Enduring Peace after Civil Conflict,” International Security, Vol. 41, No. 4 (Spring 2017), pp. 93–132; and Ronald R. Krebs and Roy Licklider, “United They Fall: Why the International Community Should Not Promote Military Integration after Civil War,” International Security, Vol. 40, No. 3 (Winter 2015/16), pp. 93–138. The research for these articles was supported by the Minerva Initiative.
24
Note: Editorial agendas are often event-driven. Although this paper is about International Security, other journals also published more articles on terrorism after the 9/11attacks. The post-2001 International Security editorial agenda was distinctive, however, in the range of international relations and political science theories that could be brought to bear on a broad set of security issues, ranging from the distribution of power in the international system to various aspects of domestic political contention.
25
Note: Scholars of international security scholars assessed whether climate change would affect the prospects for internal and international conflict. See, for example, Joshua W. Busby, Todd G. Smith, Kaiba L. White, and Shawn M. Strange, “Climate Change and Insecurity: Mapping Vulnerability in Africa,” International Security, Vol. 37, No. 4 (Spring 2013), pp. 132–172. The research for this article was supported by the Minerva Initiative.
26
Note: See, in particular, Maria J. Stephan and Erica Chenoweth, “Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict,” International Security, Vol. 33. No. 1 (Summer 2008), pp. 7–44.
27
Note: Valerie M. Hudson and Hilary Matfess, “In Plain Sight: The Neglected Linkage between Brideprice and Violent Conflict,” International Security, Vol. 42, No. 1 (Summer 2017), pp. 7–40. (Brideprice is a payment from the groom to or his family to the parents of the bride for the right to marry their daughter.) The research for this article was supported by the Minerva Initiative.
28
Note: For an important discussion of the importance of theory and the relationship between theories and policy, see John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, “Leaving Theory Behind: Why Simplistic Hypothesis Testing is Bad for International Relations,” European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 19, Issue 3 (September 2013), pp. 427–457. Mearsheimer and Walt argue that theory is essential for diagnosing policy problems, making policy decisions, and evaluating policies (p. 436). They criticize scholars’ focus on hypothesis testing instead of theory development and contend that lack of attention to theory is widening the gap between academe and the policy community (p. 448). Their article suggests that an excessive focus on the techniques of academic analysis can lead to neglect of theory and relevance.
29
Note: “X” [George F. Kennan], “The Sources of Soviet Conduct,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 25, No. 4 (July 1947), pp. 566–582. Kennan asked that the article be published anonymously, because he was serving in the U.S. government, but his identity soon became known.
30
Note: Henry A. Kissinger, The White House Years (Boston: Little Brown, 1979), p. 135.
31
Note: Some historians argue that Kennan’s influence has been exaggerated. See, for example, Wilson D. Miscamble, George F. Kennan and the Making of American Foreign Policy, 1947–1950 (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1992), and Wilson Miscamble, “Don’t Fall for the Myth of George F. Kennan,” Wall Street Journal, February 20, 2004. For an account of the genesis of the “X” article and Kennan’s influence on U.S. policy at the time the article was published, see John Lewis Gaddis, George F. Kennan: An American Life (New York: Penguin, 2011), chapter 12.
32
Note: It is possible, however, that authors would not know if their articles had influenced policy. Their work could have been discussed by policymakers with no attribution—or incorrect attribution—or any such discussions might remain confidential or classified.
33
Note: George L. Kelling and James Q. Wilson, “Broken Windows: The Police and Neighborhood Safety,” The Atlantic, March 1982.
34
Note: Katie Glueck and Ashley Southall, “Can Adams Fix ‘Broken Windows’? As violent crime surges, the mayor tests how much policing a changed New York will tolerate,” New York Times, March 26, 2022, p. A12.
35
Note: Samuel P. Huntington, “The Clash of Civilizations?” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 72, No. 3 (Summer 1993), pp.22–49.
36
Note: Francis Fukuyama, “The End of History?” The National Interest, No. 16 (Summer 1989), pp. 3–18. Fukuyama’s article did not offer clear policy prescriptions, but his conclusion that liberal democracy had won the ideological battle against its rivals contributed to the triumphalism exhibited by Western leaders after the end of the Cold War and may have buttressed the “Washington consensus” on neoliberal economic policies.
37
Note: Michael W. Doyle, “Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs, Part I,” Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 12, No. 3 (Summer 1983), pp. 205–235. Doyle continued his discussion of democracy, war, and peace in the fall 1983 issue of Philosophy and Public Affairs, but it was Part I of the article that focused on the absence of war between liberal states.
38
Note: International Security published several articles on both sides of this debate. These articles appear in Michael E. Brown, Sean M. Lynn-Jones, and Steven E. Miller, eds., Debating the Democratic Peace: An International Security Reader (Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1995).
39
Note: A National Security Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement, The White House, February 1996.
40
Note: The “long game” may be extremely long when it takes the form of articles that influence future leaders who read them as undergraduate or graduate students. See pp. 31–32 in this paper.
41
Note: See, for example, Eugene Gholz, Daryl G. Press, and Harvey M. Sapolsky, “Come Home, America: The Strategy of Restraint in the Face of Temptation,” International Security, Vol. 21, No. 4 (Spring 1997), pp. 5–45; and Christopher Layne, “From Preponderance to Offshore Balancing: America’s Future Grand Strategy,” International Security, Vol. 22, No. 1 (Summer 1997), pp. 86–124. International Security also has published articles that reject the case for restraint and argue for continued U.S. “deep engagement” in international affairs. Stephen G. Brooks, G. John Ikenberry, and William C. Wohlforth, “Don’t Come Home America: The Case Against Retrenchment,” Vol. 37, No. 3 (Winter 2012/13), pp. 7–51.
42
Note: John J. Mearsheimer, “A Strategic Misstep: The Maritime Strategy and Deterrence in Europe,” International Security, Vol. 11, No. 2 (Fall 1986), pp. 3–57.
43
Note: Malcolm Chalmers and Lutz Unterseher, “Is There a Tank Gap? Comparing NATO and Warsaw Pact Tank Fleets,” International Security, Vol. 13, No. 1 (Summer 1988), pp. 5–49.
44
Note: Theodore A. Postol, “Lessons of the Gulf War Experience with Patriot,” International Security, Vol. 16, No. 2 (Winter 1991/92), pp. 119–171.
45
Note: John B. Hattendorf and Peter M. Swartz, editors, U.S. Naval Strategy in the 1980s: Selected Documents Naval War College, Center for Naval Warfare Studies, Newport Paper 33 (Newport: Naval War College Press, December 2008), pp. 204–205.
46
Note: For a transcript and recording of the July 2, 1987, broadcast of the MacNeil-Lehrer NewsHour, see: https://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip_507-vd6nz81k4k
47
Note: For a discussion of the differences between the perspectives in the press and the analysis of national security experts such as Chalmers and Unterseher, see Denny Roy, “The U.S. Print Media and the Conventional Military Balance in Europe,” Armed Forces and Society, Vol. 16, No. 4 (Summer 1990), pp. 509–528.
48
Note: Steven J. Zaloga; Malcolm Chalmers and Lutz Unterseher, “Correspondence: The Tank Gap Data Flap,” International Security, Vol. 13, No. 4 (Spring 1989), pp. 180–194.
49
Note: Mark Helprin, “War in Europe: Thinking the Unthinkable,” Wall Street Journal, November 1, 1988.
50
Note: Robert M. Stein and Theodore A. Postol, “Correspondence: Patriot Experience in the Guld War,” International Security, Vol. 17, No. 1 (Summer 1992), pp. 199–240. The Raytheon Corporation paid for a longer version of Stein’s response to be sent to every International Security subscriber.
51
Note: John Aloysius Farrell, “The Patriot Gulf Missile ‘Didn’t Work’: Defense Secretary Cohen Speaks Out,” Boston Globe, January 13, 2001, p. 1.
52
Note: “Foreword,” p. 2.
53
Note: Publishing articles may have a downside for aspiring government officials, however, if candidate’s publications incite criticism and controversy. Critics looking for a basis to oppose the appointment of a potential official may seize on the details of what an aspiring policymaker has written. One of the most famous examples is Paul Warnke, President Carter’s nominee to be director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. Controversy swirled around Warnke’s nomination due to the presence of a comma in the written version of a statement that he had made in a statement to a Senate committee in 1972. Warnke claimed the comma, which changed the meaning of a sentence, was a typographical error. His critics said it was intentional. Warren Weaver, Jr., “Comma Now a Focus of Fight on Warnke,” New York Times, March 9, 1977, p. 9. The reputed comma was not in a published article, but one of Warnke’s articles also became a target for his critics: Paul C. Warnke, “Apes on a Treadmill,” Foreign Policy, No. 18 (Spring 1975), pp. 12–19.
54
Note: Tim Weiner, “Jeane Kirkpatrick, Reagan’s Forceful Envoy, Dies,” New York Times, December 9, 2006: https://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/09/washington/jeane-kirkpatrick-reagans-forceful-envoy-dies.html?searchResultPosition=3 (Accessed on September 1, 2021). Commentary is not a peer-reviewed academic journal, but the Jeane Kirkpatrick case is one of the clearest examples of how a publication can lead to a government position.
55
Note: A relatively small number of examples are listed in this essay. One glaring omission is the late Ashton Carter, who published an early article in the journal and then served in many government positions, ultimately as secretary of defense. Carter also served as an editor and then chair of the Editorial Board of International Security. I am compiling a more comprehensive database of International Security articles published by authors who subsequently served in government position.
56
Note: Colin H. Kahl, “Population Growth, Environmental Degradation, and State-Sponsored Violence: The Case of Kenya, 1991–93,” International Security, Vol. 23, No. 2 (Fall 1998), pp. 80–119; Kahl, “In the Crossfire or the Crosshairs? Norms, Civilian Casualties, and U.S. Conduct in Iraq,” International Security. Vol. 32, No. 1 (Summer 2007), pp. 7–46.
57
Note: Michael McFaul, “Rethinking the ‘Reagan Doctrine’ in Angola,” International Security, Vol. 14, No. 3 (Winter 1989/90), pp. 99–135; McFaul, “A Precarious Peace: Domestic Politics in the Making of Russian Foreign Policy,” International Security, Vol. 22, No. 3 (Winter 1997/98), pp. 5–35; McFaul, “Ukraine Imports Democracy: External Influences on the Orange Revolution,” International Security, Vol. 32, No. 2 (Fall 2007), pp. 45–83.
58
Note: Thomas J. Christensen, “Threats, Assurances, and the Last Chance for Peace: The Lessons of Mao’s Korean War Telegrams,” International Security, Vol. 17, No. 1 (Summer 1992), pp. 122–154; Christensen, “China, the U.S.-Japan Alliance, and the Security Dilemma in East Asia,” International Security, Vol. 23, No. 4 (Spring 1999), pp. 49–80; Christensen, “Posing Problems Without Catching Up: China’s Rise and Challenges for U.S. Security Policy,” International Security, Vol. 25, No. 4 (Spring 2001), pp. 5–40; and Christensen, “Fostering Stability or Creating a Monster? The Rise of China and U.S. Policy toward East Asia,” International Security, Vol. 31, No. 1 (Summer 2006), pp. 81–126.
59
Note: Elisa D. Harris, “Sverdlovsk and Yellow Rain: Two Cases of Soviet Noncompliance,” International Security, Vol. 11, No. 4 (Spring 1987), pp. 41–95.
60
Note: Jessica Eve Stern, “Moscow Meltdown: Can Russia Survive?” International Security, Vol. 18, No. 4 (Spring 1994), pp. 40–65.
61
Note: Stuart J. Kaufman,, “Spiraling to Ethnic War: Elites, Masses, and Moscow in Moldova’s Civil War,” International Security, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Fall 1996), pp. 108–138.
62
Note: Victor D. Cha, “Hawk Engagement and Preventive Defense on the Korean Peninsula,” International Security, Vol. 27, No. 1 (Summer 2002), pp. 40–78.
63
Note: Eliot A. Cohen, “Constraints on America’s Conduct of Small Wars,” International Security, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Fall 1984, pp. 151–181; Eliot A. Cohen, “Distant Battles: Modern War in the Third World.” International Security, Vol. 10, No. 4 (Spring 1986), pp. 143–171; and Eliot A. Cohen, “Toward Better Net Assessment: Rethinking the European Conventional Balance,” International Security, Vol. 13, No. 1 (Summer 1988), pp. 50–89.
64
Note: Amanda J. Rothschild, “Rousing a Response: When the United States Changes Policy toward Mass Killing,” International Security, Vol. 42, No. 2 (Fall 2017), pp. 120–154.
65
Note: Peter D. Feaver, “Command and Control in Emerging Nuclear Nations,” International Security, Vol. 17, No. 3 (Winter 1992/93), pp. 160–187; and Christopher Gelpi, Peter D. Feaver, and Jason Reifler, “Success Matters: Casualty Sensitivity and the War in Iraq,” International Security, Vol. 30, No. 3 (Winter 2005/06), pp. 7–46.
66
Note: Paris has published two important articles in International Security. Roland Paris, “Peacebuilding and the Limits of Liberal Internationalism,” International Security, Vol. 22, No. 2 (Fall 1997) pp. 54–89; and “Human Security: Paradigm Shift or Hot Air?” International Security, Vol. 26, No. 2 (Fall 2001), pp. 87–102.
67
Note: International Security published Stedman’s oft-cited analysis of “spoiler” problems. Stephen John Stedman, “Spoiler Problems in Peace Processes,” International Security, Vol. 22, No. 2 (Fall 1997), pp. 5–53.
68
Note: The most prominent example is Desch, Cult of the Irrelevant.
69
Note: See ibid., chapters 1 and 8.
70
Note: One example of how academic research can be disseminated in many forms, ranging from op-ed articles to testimony before Congress, is the outreach program that promoted the recommendations that a November 1991 report offered for safeguarding Soviet nuclear weapons in the event of the collapse and disintegration of the Soviet Union. Kurt M. Campbell, Ashton B. Carter, Steven E. Miller, and Charles A. Zraket, Soviet Nuclear Fission: Control of the Nuclear Arsenal in a Disintegrating Soviet Union, CSIA Studies in International Security, No. 1 (Cambridge, Mass: Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, 1991). Steven E. Miller’s paper for this project examines many forms of outreach that the authors of Soviet Nuclear Fission and related subsequent research used to disseminate and promote their recommendations, which influenced many U.S. policies and programs, including those included in the Nunn-Lugar legislation.
71
Note: Efforts to promote scholarly research in newspapers and other publications are necessary to reach most policymakers, who are unlikely to read academic journals. See Paul C. Avey and Michael C. Desch, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 58, No. 2 (June 2014), pp. 227–246. Avey and Desch find that “unclassified newspaper articles were as important to policymakers as the classified information generated inside the government. This fact opens up an important avenue for scholarly influence upon policy if scholars can condense and convey their findings via this route.” Ibid., p. 244. See also Paul C. Avey, Michael C. Desch, Eric Parajon, Susan Peterson, Ryan Powers, Michael J. Tierney, “Does Social Science Inform Foreign Policy? Evidence from a Survey of US National Security, Trade, and Development Officials,” International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 66, No. 1 (March 2022).
72
Note: Some publishers provide detailed guides that tell editors how to increase the Impact Factor of their journals. See, for example: https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/increasing-citations-and-improving-your-impact-factor (accessed on September 1, 2021).
73
Note: John J. Mearsheimer, “The False Promise of International Institutions,” International Security, Vol. 19, No. 3 (Winter 1994/95), pp. 5–49.
74
Note: William C. Wohlforth, “The Stability of a Unipolar World,” International Security, Vol. 24, No. 1 (Summer 1999), pp. 5–41.
75
Note: Kenneth N. Waltz, “The Stability of a Bipolar World,” Daedalus, Vol. 93, No. 3 (Summer 1964), pp. 881–909.
76
Note: Kenneth N. Waltz, “Structural Realism after the Cold War,” International Security, Vol. 25, No. 1 (Summer 2000), pp. 5–41.
77
Note: Ibid., p. 41.
78
Note: Roland Paris, “Human Security: Paradigm Shift or Hot Air?” International Security, Vol. 26, No. 2 (Fall 2001), pp. 87–102.
79
Note: Alexander Cooley and James Ron, “The NGO Scramble: Organizational Insecurity and the Political Economy of Transnational Action,” International Security, Vol. 27, No. 1 (Summer 2002), pp. 5–39.
80
Note: The consistently high rankings of Foreign Affairs are all the more remarkable, because the journal does not publish footnotes and therefore does not benefit from citing its own articles in the articles that it publishes.

Recent & Related

Report

Japan’s Strategic Future and Implications for the US-Japan Alliance

Yuki Tatsumi • Pamela Kennedy • Kenji Nagayoshi

Chapter

The Defense Research Funding Environment: A Conversation

Melissa Flagg • Michael Desch • David Montgomery

Research

A Grim Anniversary: Marking Two Years of the Russo-Ukraine War