Mapping Quality Judgment in International Relations: Cognitive Dimensions and Sociological Correlates

Research quality assessment is a cornerstone of academic practice, yet the criteria that inform such judgments are often assumed rather than critically examined through empirical research. This article draws on a global survey of international relations (IR) scholars (N = 820) to analyze the cognitive dimensions underlying research quality evaluation and their variation across sociological and epistemological factors. We identify seven distinct quality factors: theoretical significance, logical style and structure, practical significance, methodological rigor, contribution and value for future research, interest and topicality, and challenge to existing knowledge. Our results suggest that, while personal preferences, disciplinary norms, and professional practices—shaped by variables such as gender, nationality, and political orientation—influence evaluations, research quality judgments are ultimately grounded in shared cognitive frameworks. Our study offers robust evidence that quality assessments, though subject to sociological variation, reflect deeper, common cognitive structures across scholarly communities.