| name | apsr-writing-style |
| description | Use when drafting or polishing an American Political Science Review (APSR) manuscript so it reads for the whole discipline, follows the APSA Style Manual, and fits the word caps (most Articles < 11,000 words; Research Notes < 7,000; abstract <= 150 words). Tightens prose and format; it does not invent content. |
Writing Style (apsr-writing-style)
An APSR paper must be readable by a political scientist outside its subfield, formatted to the APSA
Style Manual for Political Science, and disciplined to the word cap. This skill is about reaching the
discipline and respecting the format — not about generating claims.
When to trigger
- Drafting the introduction, framing the contribution, or final polish
- Over the word cap and needing to cut without losing the argument
- Writing the ≤ 150-word abstract
- Aligning citations/headings/format to APSA style before submission
Reach the whole discipline
- Front-load the contribution. By the end of the introduction the reader knows the question, the
argument, the evidence, and why it matters to political science broadly. Don't make a generalist
dig for the "so what."
- Minimize subfield jargon or define it on first use; an IR reader should follow an Americanist
paper. Spell out acronyms.
- Argument-first prose. Lead with claims; use evidence to support them. Avoid "the data show…"
without saying what they show and why it matters.
- Signpost. Clear section structure so a reader can navigate the argument.
The flagship register: write for four subfields at once
APSR's readership spans Americanists, comparativists, IR scholars, and political theorists — and
the reviewer set will likely cross those lines. A sentence that is efficient shorthand inside one
subfield is a stall for the other three. Concrete moves:
- Translate the stakes once. After stating the question in subfield terms, add one sentence
recasting it as a general problem of politics — representation, accountability, coalition
formation, legitimacy, institutional change. That sentence is what an outside-subfield reviewer
quotes back to justify sending the paper out.
- Name the political object, not the dataset. "Legislators facing re-election" travels;
"respondents in wave 4" does not.
- Let the prose carry the mechanism. Empirical sections should read as the argument advancing,
not as output being narrated. Under an 11,000-word cap, any paragraph that could vanish without
weakening the argument belongs in the online appendix.
Before → after micro-rewrites
- Before: "Using panel data and a TWFE design, we estimate a significant effect of X on Y."
After: "Where X expands, Y follows — across two decades of data and however we define exposure.
Y is the link most theories of accountability take for granted; we show when it breaks."
- Before: "This paper contributes to the growing literature on Z."
After: "We show the standard account of Z gets the incentives backwards — which changes what
scholars of elections, regimes, and legislatures should each expect to observe."
The ≤150-word abstract, sentence by sentence
Budget roughly five sentences: (1) the general question; (2) your argument in one clause; (3) the
evidence and design, named plainly; (4) the headline finding with its direction; (5) why the
discipline should care. Cut hedges first, then estimator detail — the desk screen reads the
abstract before anyone reads the methods section.
Format to APSA style
- Citations: author-date per the APSA Style Manual; keep one consistent style (manage with
Zotero/BibTeX). References excluded from the word count.
- Front page: include the word count; corresponding author has an ORCID iD.
- Anonymize: APSR is double-anonymous — no author names/affiliations/acknowledgments in the
manuscript, no obvious self-references ("as we showed in…"), strip identifying file metadata.
- Abstract: ≤ 150 words, stating question, approach, and finding.
Fit the word cap (counts include tables/figures/footnotes; excludes references + appendices)
- Move balance tables, full specs, and extended robustness to the online appendix.
- Cut throat-clearing and literature dumps; engage the debate, not every paper (see
apsr-literature-positioning).
- Tighten footnotes — they count toward the limit.
- Prefer one decisive figure to three redundant tables.
- Cut in this order when over the cap: (1) robustness prose that a one-line appendix pointer can
replace; (2) literature paragraphs that survey rather than adjudicate; (3) footnotes restating
the text; (4) hedging repeated across sections. If after all four passes the paper still cannot
fit under 11,000 words, ask whether it is two papers — or whether the tight version is really a
Research Note (< 7,000).
Anti-patterns
- A subfield-insider intro that never states general significance
- Burying the contribution in the middle of the paper
- An abstract over 150 words or one that hides the finding
- Mixed citation styles; acknowledgments or self-references that break anonymity
- Padding a Research Note toward Article length
Output format
【Contribution stated by end of intro?】[Y/N]
【Reads past the subfield?】jargon defined / acronyms spelled? [Y/N]
【Abstract】word count (≤150)
【Word count】articles <11,000 / notes <7,000 (incl. tables/figures/footnotes)?
【APSA style + anonymized + ORCID】[Y/N]
【Next】apsr-transparency-and-data-policy
Supplementary resources
