| name | cps-review-process |
| description | Use when anticipating how a Comparative Political Studies (CPS) manuscript will be evaluated — desk screening, anonymous peer review, decision categories, and how reviewers judge comparative work. Calibrates expectations; it does not write the submission or the rebuttal. |
Review Process (cps-review-process)
Knowing how CPS evaluates a paper lets you preempt the objections before submitting. CPS uses
anonymous peer review via SAGE Track (ScholarOne); the manuscript is screened by an editor first,
then sent to reviewers if it clears desk evaluation. Comparativists review for comparative leverage,
travel, and methodological soundness on the paper's own terms.
When to trigger
- Before submission, to stress-test the paper against likely reviewer objections
- Deciding whether the paper is ready or needs another design/analysis loop
- Interpreting a decision letter and what each decision category means
- Anticipating reviewer disagreement across subfields/methods
The two screens
- Editorial / desk screen. An editor judges fit and quality before review. Common desk-reject
grounds: not comparative / no comparative leverage; out of CPS scope; better suited to a general or
IR journal; insufficient contribution; serious methodological or ethical problems; not ready in
English/format. Make the comparative contribution unmissable on page one to clear this screen.
- Anonymous peer review. Reviewers (typically comparativists matched to subfield and method)
evaluate the contribution, design, and execution. Editors weigh reviews and decide.
What CPS reviewers reward and punish
| Reviewers reward | Reviewers punish |
|---|
| Clear comparative leverage and a portable mechanism | Single-case study with no comparative claim |
| Design that rules out the leading rival | "Causal" language on a cross-national correlation |
| Cross-national measurement handled transparently | Cherry-picked codings; few-cluster SEs ignored |
| Engagement with the comparative literature beyond one region | Regional insularity; reinventing a known result |
| Replication-ready materials and a data availability statement | Opaque, un-reproducible analysis |
Decision categories (verify current wording)
- Reject (incl. desk reject) — fit, contribution, or execution falls short.
- Revise & resubmit (R&R) — the path most accepted papers take; address reviewers and editor
systematically (hand off to
cps-rebuttal).
- Conditional acceptance / acceptance — for quantitative papers, final acceptance is gated on the
CPS Dataverse deposit (see
cps-transparency-and-data).
Exact decision labels, timelines, desk-reject rates, and number of reviewers are not fixed public
figures — confirm on the SAGE author page; treat the above as the working model (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).
Pre-submission stress test
- Write the single strongest reviewer objection to your comparative claim and answer it in one
paragraph + one exhibit. If you cannot, loop back to
cps-research-design or cps-data-analysis.
- Check the paper against the comparative-fit checks in
cps-workflow before you submit.
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- Submitting before the comparative leverage is unmistakable (desk-reject risk)
- Ignoring that quant final acceptance is gated on the Dataverse deposit
- Assuming reviewers share your regional expertise — write for a cross-regional comparativist
- Treating R&R as acceptance — it is a contract to answer every point
Output format
【Desk-screen risk】comparative contribution clear on page one? [Y/N]
【Strongest objection】+ the one-paragraph + one-exhibit answer
【Inference/measurement】defensible for a comparative reviewer? [Y/N]
【Transparency ready】Dataverse package + data availability statement? [Y/N]
【Decision expected】reject / R&R / (conditional) accept
【Next】cps-submission (if ready) or back to design/analysis
Supplementary resources
