Editor's Notes

In June 2011, I was conducting research in East Africa. At some point in my travels, my credit card number was compromised. Upon return to Canada, the credit card fraud department called to ask if there was any chance I had simultaneously purchased items in Amman, Jordan, and Madrid, Spain! While I use my card very judiciously in this part of the world, the rising number of bank machines in large cities has eliminated the challenge I faced a decade ago working in the region, whereby I had to travel with enough traveler's checks or cash for the duration of my time away. My willingness to use a credit card abroad or at home is a risk calculation: The risk that my card and/or identity will be compromised is weighed against the degree of faith I have in the multiple systems that I interact with during a transaction. While credit card security measures continue to evolve, ultimately, the security and value of credit cards is a function of how humans and human systems interact with multiple technical systems. This observation is not novel; McLuhan, Ellul, Mumford, and so many others—all were concerned and critical of how technology would shape the human experience and the effect of humans using and relying on technology. The significance of these technical–human interactions seems more and more to be at the center of the human condition and, hence, government attention: in the last 12 months alone, and since I took over as editor of Review of Policy Research (RPR), technical innovations have been at the heart of tragedy (Fukushima), revolution (Egypt), and now civil disobedience (England). It is my goal and the goal of the RPR editorial board to have the journal continue to be a leading outlet for rigorous studies of the politics and policy of science, technology, and environmental issues. The journal aims to serve as a leading outlet for innovative research; theory testing and building; and thoughtful, objective, comparative analysis that explains past and present government actions and intentions and informs future actions. The 2010 results of the Journal Citation Reports suggest that there is strong demand for the research published in RPR. RPR's first impact factor score was 1.354, which ranks it 25 out of 139 in the category of political science journals in the Social Science Citation Index and 10 out of 39 in the category of public administration. I am proud of this first result. I believe it speaks to the strong legacy of past RPR editors, journal contributors, and the editorial board team, as well as the scholarly and public value of the scholarship the journal promotes. The papers in this issue of RPR are representative of the diversity of issues, regions, and methods that have helped in the journal's success. This issue begins with an important analysis of “Internet neutrality” in Korea—the belief that Internet service providers and governments should not discriminate against content or vary speed of content so that all users are treated equally. Dong- Hee Shin's article, “Demystifying Internet Neutrality in South Korea with Stakeholder Analysis” carefully analyzes this important issue by examining the principalstakeholders involved in this debate, the character of their interactions, and the roles they have played in this hotly contested issue in South Korea. Shin's work contributes to the strong body of research on broadband issues in Korea but also addresses an issue of increasing importance around the globe. Shin's article is followed by a rigorous statistical analysis by Christopher Marcoux and Johannes Urpelainen. Their article, “Special Interests, Regulatory Quality, and the Pesticides Overload,” systematically examines under what conditions the agrochemical industry is likely to reduce its use of pesticides. Their findings are supported by data from 24 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. The results shed important light on the role political institutions play in regulatory effectiveness. The final research article for this issue is “The Role of Social Scientists in Accelerating Innovation in Regenerative Medicine.” Marie Lavoie examines what role social and ethical values play in advancing technological progress. Lavoie argues that these factors should be more central in our understanding of technological progress and better integrated into the regulatory and development process of new technology. The final original contribution to this issue comes in our “viewpoints and perspectives” section. Peter Stoett, the author of the 1997 book The International Politics of Whaling (UBC Press) presents a highly engaging review of the past and present actions of the International Whaling Commission. Stoett's contribution, “Irreconcilable Differences: The International Whaling Commission and Cetacean Futures,” raises provocative, critical observations concerning the commission, its recent meetings, and the conflict-laden (often absurd) interactions that continue to take place between countries in the commission. For anyone who has ever been interested in the past, present, and future of whales, this piece will (re)kindle important considerations concerning these mammals as well as the international regime tasked with establishing rules for their sustainability. This issue closes with a very strong collection of science, technology and environmental book reviews, which consider recent books on China, Russia, the greening of information technology, and electricity. Please recall that RPR has two new book review editors. If you are interested in doing a science or technology book review, please contact Clark Miller ([email protected]); if you would like to do a book review on an environment book, please contact Henrik Selin ([email protected]).

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.