Clear rules that encourage meritocracy, and that include the evaluation of scholarly productivity, are slowly and unevenly taking hold in academic life in Latin America. While some countries have official rankings of political science departments, others rely only on informal assessments. In a third set of countries, we cannot even consider the competition because the market is dominated by a state monopoly. This article provides a first, systematic study of scientific productivity and concomitant impact in more than twenty departments of Political Science and International Relations in the region. I show that scholars' productivity is intimately related to where they pursued graduate studies, what subfield of research they work on, and the explicit adoption of rules that encourage meritocracy and academic careerism.