apsr-writing-style

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

1. 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."

1. Minimize subfield jargon or define it on first use; an IR reader should follow an Americanist

paper. Spell out acronyms.

1. Argument-first prose. Lead with claims; use evidence to support them. Avoid "the data show…"

without saying what they show and why it matters.

1. 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

• [../../resources/official-source-map.md](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — word/abstract caps, APSA Style Manual, ORCID, anonymity