poq-topic-selection

Topic Selection & Fit (poq-topic-selection)

POQ selectively publishes work in three areas: **theoretical contributions to opinion and

communication research, analyses of current public opinion, and investigations of

methodological issues involved in survey validity**. The bar is not "uses a survey" — it is a real

contribution to how we understand opinion or how we measure it. Use this skill to pressure-test

fit before you invest.

When to trigger

• Choosing among possible projects or framings for a POQ submission
• A reviewer/colleague said the paper is "just another survey analysis" with no methods or opinion payoff
• Deciding among Original Article, Research Note, Polls in Context, and Research Synthesis
• Unsure whether the contribution is substantive (opinion) or methodological (survey science)

The POQ fit test

A strong POQ paper usually clears all four:

1. A public-opinion or survey-methods contribution. It advances opinion/communication theory,

illuminates current public opinion, or improves survey validity (coverage, sampling, nonresponse,

measurement, mode, weighting). State which.

1. Engages survey error seriously. The design and claims are framed in terms of **Total Survey

Error**, not a single error source. POQ readers are survey scientists.

1. Disclosable to AAPOR standards. You can report exact question wording, population, sample

design, mode and dates, response rate per AAPOR Standard Definitions, sample sizes/precision,

and weighting/clustering effects (see poq-survey-design-and-measurement).

1. A clean, answerable scope sized to the type — ≤ 6,500 words (Article), < 3,000 (Note),

≤ 2,500 (Polls in Context).

Contribution framing

| If the contribution is… | Frame it as… |

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

| Substantive opinion finding | what it changes about how we understand attitudes, behavior, or communication |

| Methodological | what survey-error source it reduces or quantifies, and for whom it generalizes |

| Trend / current opinion | why this movement matters now and how the polls support the read (Polls in Context) |

| Replication / extension | which influential finding it tests and what is newly learned (Research Note) |

Type choice

• Original Article — full study, broad claim, ≤ 6,500 words of text and notes.
• Research Note — one crisp contribution (a single finding, a decisive replication, a focused

methods result), < 3,000 words. Do not pad it into an Article.

• Polls in Context — short, timely interpretation of current poll data, ≤ 2,500 words.
• Research Synthesis — integrative review consolidating a literature, ≤ 6,500 words.

Reframing toward POQ (before → after)

The same study often clears or fails the fit test depending on how the question is posed. Three

micro-rewrites in the POQ register:

• Topic survey → opinion theory. Before: "We surveyed 2,000 adults about climate change." →

After: "Using a probability panel, we test whether motivated reasoning or elite-cue exposure

better explains the partisan gap in climate attitudes." The dataset is the same; the second

version names a theoretical mechanism POQ readers can adjudicate.

• Method demo → survey validity. Before: "We compare two question formats." → After: "We

quantify how much measurement error a forced-choice versus check-all format introduces in

sensitive-behavior reports, and for which respondent groups." Now the payoff is an error source

(measurement) with stated generalizability.

• Poll dump → current opinion. Before: "Recent polls on issue X are summarized." → After:

"Three probability polls fielded across the campaign show opinion moved only among low-attention

independents — evidence against the saturation account." That is a Polls in Context claim, not a

compilation.

If no rewrite produces a mechanism, an error source, or an interpretable movement in opinion, the

project is off-fit — stop before drafting.

Anti-patterns

• "We ran a survey on topic X" with no opinion-theory or survey-methods payoff
• A method demo with no survey-validity stakes a POQ reader would recognize
• A finding that cannot be disclosed to AAPOR standards (no wording, no response rate)
• Choosing Article length out of habit when a Research Note would land harder

Output format

【Question】one sentence
【Contribution】opinion-theory / current-opinion / survey-validity (which?)
【Survey-error frame】coverage / sampling / nonresponse / measurement / mode / adjustment
【Disclosable to AAPOR standards?】[Y/N — what's missing]
【Type】Original Article / Research Note / Polls in Context / Research Synthesis
【Fit verdict】strong / needs reframing / off-fit (why)
【Next】poq-literature-positioning

Supplementary resources

• [../../resources/external_tools.md](../../resources/external_tools.md) — survey data sources and methodology toolkit
• [../../resources/official-source-map.md](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — POQ scope and submission types