cps-submission

Submission Preflight (cps-submission)

The last gate before SAGE Track. CPS desk-screens on fit and basics, so a clean, correctly anonymized,

within-limit package avoids an avoidable bounce. Run this checklist against the live SAGE author

instructions before you click submit — volatile specifics change.

When to trigger

• Assembling the final files for SAGE Track (ScholarOne) submission
• Final anonymization and word-count pass
• Writing the data availability statement and confirming ORCID
• A submission was returned for a formatting or anonymity problem

Submission components

| Component | Requirement (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准) |

|-----------|------|

| Portal | SAGE Track (ScholarOne) — reuse an existing account if you have reviewed/authored within the past year |

| Anonymized manuscript | Identifying info removed from the main file (sent to reviewers) |

| Title page (separate) | Authors, affiliations, contact, acknowledgments — kept off the review file |

| Word count | Article max 11,000 words; references, tables, figures excluded |

| Abstract | Unstructured, ~150 words between title and body |

| References | APA-style author-date (SAGE house); in-text and list agree |

| ORCID | Required for the submitting author; co-authors encouraged to link before acceptance |

| Data availability statement | Required — available where / why not shared |

| Replication materials | Quantitative papers: staged for the CPS Dataverse (gates final acceptance) |

| Pre-analysis plan | Optional, anonymized, as supplementary material |

| Supplementary / online appendix | Robustness grids and secondary material |

Anonymization preflight (CPS is anonymous-reviewed)

• Remove author names, affiliations, acknowledgments, and grant numbers from the main file → title page.
• Neutralize obvious self-references ("in our prior work" → "prior work [Author, year]").
• Strip identifying metadata from the document and from any embedded files/figures.
• Anonymize any linked materials (OSF/pre-analysis plan) used during review.

Comparative-leverage last check

Before the formatting checklist, ask whether the review file still reads like a CPS paper after

anonymization:

| Gate | Pass condition | Bounce risk |

|------|----------------|-------------|

| Comparative claim | The abstract and introduction state what travels across cases, regions, regimes, or time | A single-country result is submitted with only a broad comparative promise |

| Rival explanation | The design names the strongest comparative rival and shows how the evidence adjudicates it | Robustness appears as generic controls, not a debate-specific test |

| Scope condition | The manuscript says where the argument should and should not generalize | The contribution is framed as universal without leverage |

| Evidence-package fit | Supplemental files and replication materials support the comparative claim | Appendices contain unreferenced analyses or non-anonymized materials |

If any gate fails, route back before submission. A perfectly formatted paper can still be returned or

desk-rejected if the comparative contribution is invisible.

Final checklist

• [ ] Anonymized manuscript + separate title page prepared
• [ ] Word count ≤ 11,000 (references/tables/figures excluded); count reported as required
• [ ] Unstructured ~150-word abstract present
• [ ] APA-style author-date references; every in-text cite has a list entry
• [ ] ORCID for the submitting author linked in SAGE Track
• [ ] Data availability statement included
• [ ] Replication package staged for the CPS Dataverse (quantitative papers)
• [ ] Figures meet SAGE specs (grayscale-safe, vector/high-res); exhibit numbers consistent
• [ ] All claims verified against the live SAGE author-instructions page

Anti-patterns

• Submitting to the wrong portal or an outdated URL — CPS uses SAGE Track (ScholarOne)
• Identifying info left in the main file or in document/figure metadata
• Over the word limit, or miscounting (forgetting refs/tables/figures are excluded)
• Missing ORCID for the submitting author, or missing the data availability statement
• Structured abstract or wrong citation style (CPS is APA-style author-date)
• Promising replication materials but not staging them — quant final acceptance is gated on the deposit

Output format

【Portal】SAGE Track (ScholarOne) — account ready? [Y/N]
【Anonymized】main file clean + separate title page? [Y/N]
【Length】words / 11,000 (refs/tables/figures excluded)
【Abstract】unstructured ~150 words? [Y/N]
【Comparative leverage visible?】claim + rival + scope condition stated? [Y/N]
【References】APA author-date, in-text=list? [Y/N]
【ORCID】submitting author linked? [Y/N]
【Data availability statement】present? [Y/N]
【Dataverse package】staged (quant)? [Y/N/NA]
【Next】cps-rebuttal (after a decision)

Templates

• [templates/checklist.md](templates/checklist.md) — copy-paste submission preflight checklist

Supplementary resources

• [../../resources/official-source-map.md](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — SAGE Track, length, abstract, ORCID, and data-policy facts
• [../../resources/external_tools.md](../../resources/external_tools.md) — reference managers and anonymization tooling