The two unrelated topics of "where to publish" and student course evaluations are relevant to two articles found in this month's P.S.: Political Science & Politics. In Silencing the Dummy Variable: A Plea to Heed One's Audience and Publish More, Stephen Wasby suggests that in some circumstances it is appropriate to "tone down" the stats talk in articles, and perhaps write different versions of the same article to place in journals with different audiences.
In My Professor is a Partisan Hack: How Perceptions of a Professor's Political Views Affect Student Course Evaluations (click on title to download the pdf file), Kelly-Woessner and Woessner find that liberal professors are viewed "more favorably" and "[s]tudents who perceive their professors to be political allies rate courses more favorably than do students who perceive their professors to be political foes."
They go on: "Consequently, if the goal were simply to win the love and adoration of the students, clever instructors would merely pander to the median 'voter.' By mimicking students' views and reinforcing long-held beliefs, professors might score well on student evaluations, while providing no useful information at all." The authors do not advocate this, but I think it points to some flaws in student course evaluations--what do they measure?; can they be manipulated?; is there a gap between student perception of what is good teaching and what is actually good teaching?