| name | poq-review-process |
| description | Use to understand how Public Opinion Quarterly (POQ) evaluates a manuscript — double-blind review via ScholarOne Manuscripts, typically two to three referees, the survey-methodology and AAPOR-disclosure bar reviewers apply, and how associate editors may request code/data during review. Sets expectations and shapes the paper to survive review; it does not contact editors. |
Review Process (poq-review-process)
Knowing how POQ screens and decides lets you pre-empt the failure modes before submitting. POQ runs a
double-blind process via ScholarOne Manuscripts, with manuscripts typically evaluated by at
least two (most often three) referees who are survey scientists. They will scrutinize survey error
and AAPOR-standard disclosure as hard as the substantive claim.
When to trigger
- Before submitting, to stress-test against the failure modes POQ reviewers catch
- Choosing the submission type and anticipating reviewer expectations for it
- Interpreting a decision letter and setting expectations
- Understanding what associate editors may request (code/data) during review
How POQ review works
- Double-blind. Reviewers do not know the authors and authors do not know reviewers. Anonymize the
manuscript accordingly (see
poq-submission).
- Editorial handling. An associate editor manages the paper; the AE may request code and data as
a necessary part of peer review — have your replication materials ready, not just at acceptance.
- Referees. Typically two to three expert referees evaluate the work.
- What referees weigh (POQ-specific):
- Contribution — to opinion/communication theory, current opinion, or survey validity.
- Survey design & Total Survey Error — coverage, sampling, nonresponse, measurement, mode, weighting.
- AAPOR disclosure — is Appendix A complete? Is the response rate computed per AAPOR
Standard Definitions? Are sampling and weighting documented?
- Analysis — design-based inference; reproducibility.
- Decision categories — reject, revise-and-resubmit, or accept (typical journal practice; confirm
current wording — 待核实). Acceptance generally needs the referees persuaded on both substance and
method.
Shape the paper to pass
- Make the contribution type explicit (opinion vs. methods) so referees judge it on the right terms.
- Complete Appendix A and report the response rate per AAPOR definitions before submitting — a
missing disclosure element is an easy, avoidable strike.
- Use design-based inference; weights/strata/clusters in the variance, not just the estimate.
- Have replication materials ready in case the AE requests them during review.
- Anticipate the artifact-vs-effect objection and answer it in the design (see
poq-survey-design-and-measurement).
Anti-patterns
- An incomplete or missing Appendix A (disclosure failure reviewers flag immediately)
- A response rate with no AAPOR definition; undocumented weighting
- Naive IID inference on a complex sample
- Assuming code/data are only needed at acceptance — the AE may ask during review
- Sending an under-anonymized manuscript into a double-blind process
Review-risk pass for Public Opinion Quarterly
Run this as a concrete capability pass. First lock the public-opinion construct, sampling frame, mode effects, weighting/nonresponse plan, and trend or causal interpretation; then test whether the manuscript addresses survey and public-opinion reviewers who inspect measurement, sampling, mode, nonresponse, and inference about attitudes or behavior.
- Primary move: Turn likely reviewer objections into a ledger with response evidence, manuscript location, and the decision-maker who must be convinced first.
- Decision ledger: return
claim / evidence / blocker / next edit rows so the next pass can patch the manuscript directly.
- Sibling comparison: compare against Political Analysis for methods-first work, Journal of Politics for political-science theory, Communication Research for media-effects framing; if the neighboring outlet has the stronger audience claim, recommend re-routing before polishing.
- Verification floor: before submission-ready advice, re-open
resources/official-source-map.md for volatile rules and name the one unresolved fact that could change the recommendation.
Output format
【Contribution clear】opinion / current-opinion / survey-validity? [Y/N]
【TSE addressed】coverage/sampling/nonresponse/measurement/mode/weighting? [Y/N]
【Appendix A + AAPOR response rate】complete? [Y/N]
【Design-based inference】weights/strata/clusters in variance? [Y/N]
【Replication ready for AE request】[Y/N]
【Realistic outcome】reject / R&R / (rare) accept
【Next】poq-submission (or poq-rebuttal if decided)
Supplementary resources
