Word limits suck for many reasons, but especially so because footnotes are nearly always included. I enjoy referencing the books and articles that inform, challenge and inspire my own thinking on a topic, but they're always the first thing to go when making cuts. A quick :

Citation counts are obviously critical to a journal's all-important impact factor. But they are also the lifeblood of academic progression in other ways - for securing tenure, promotion, new jobs - and a simple way of recognising the value of others' work.

The pressure to squeeze an extra word or two out of a manuscript often encourages us to eliminate "unnecessary" citations. This leads us to lean on pro forma classics of the IR canon - the references that "should" be there - at the expense of other less well-known work.

This is a problem. It incentivises the perpetuation of pre-existing biases that favour scholars of certain demographics and rank at the expense of those communities who are historically underrepresented in the field, as well as junior scholars trying to break through.

It also needlessly limits the bounds of intellectual horizons. Progress in a field often comes from the (re)discovery of an obscure paper, or the application of work in an adjacent discipline.

Since we all rely on footnotes as important guides to what has been said on a topic, we lose something important when the range of work being reflected in them is narrowed by arbitrary considerations like word counts.

We should always try to write in as clear and concise a manner as possible. But sometimes less is not more. Complex ideas need to be explained and it might take a few more words to do so effectively.

I get that footnotes can interrupt the flow of the text, especially if in-text citations are preferred. I get that additional pages cost publishers more to edit and print. But few people read physical copies of journal issues any more and we could adopt different styles.

I'm aware that many of these issues go well beyond the seemingly trivial matter of including footnotes in word counts. But flexibility on this might be a small way we can help address them.

Interested to hear thoughts and challenges (so long as they are properly attributed ).

#AcademicTwitter #AcademicChatter

Especially interested to hear from any editors, and shout out to those already doing so much on these issues.

@Journal_IS @IntOrgJournal @ISQ_Jrnl @IAJournal_CH @EJIntSec @FPA_Jrnl @BritJPIR @EuroJournIR @World_Pol @SecStudies_Jrnl