---
name: brycewang-stanford/apsr-topic-selection
source: https://app.decimal.ai/s/brycewang-stanford-apsr-topic-selection@1/SKILL.md
source_sha256: 1c0230ea0bf0
---

# Topic Selection & Fit (apsr-topic-selection)

APSR is the **general-interest flagship** of political science. The bar is not "new to my subfield" —
it is **"matters to the discipline."** Use this skill to pressure-test fit before you invest.

## When to trigger

- Choosing among possible projects or framings for an APSR submission
- A reviewer/colleague said the paper feels "too narrow" or "subfield-only"
- Deciding between a **Regular Article** and a **Research Note**
- Considering **Registered Reports** (prospective design) or **Replications and Reappraisals**

## The APSR fit test

A strong APSR paper usually clears all four:

1. **General significance.** A scholar in a *different* subfield (e.g., a comparativist reading an
   Americanist paper) should see why it matters. State the stakes for politics broadly — power,
   institutions, behavior, representation, conflict, justice.
2. **A real contribution, not just a finding.** It changes how the field thinks, measures, or argues
   — a new theory, a decisive test, a reconceptualization, a corrected record.
3. **Credible on its own methodological terms.** Quantitative, qualitative, formal, experimental, or
   interpretive — each is welcome, but each must be done rigorously (see `apsr-research-design`).
4. **A clean, answerable scope.** The question is sharp enough to answer convincingly within
   ~11,000 words (Article) or ~7,000 (Research Note).

## Subfield framing (write past your home subfield)

| Home subfield | Reach to the discipline by… |
|---------------|------------------------------|
| American politics | tie to representation, institutions, or behavior that travels beyond the US case |
| Comparative | draw the general mechanism, not just the country case; speak to theory others can use |
| International relations | connect to cooperation, conflict, or institutions as general phenomena |
| Political theory | show why the normative/conceptual stakes matter for empirical work or public life |
| Methodology | show what substantive questions the method newly answers — not method for its own sake |

## Track choice

- **Regular Article** — full study, broad claim, < 11,000 words.
- **Research Note** — one crisp contribution (a decisive test, a measurement advance, a focused
  reappraisal), < 7,000 words. Faster to read; do not pad it into an Article.
- **Registered Report** — you have a strong *design* but no results yet; get in-principle acceptance
  on the design (see `apsr-review-process`).
- **Replications and Reappraisals** — your contribution is to re-examine an influential published
  result (see `apsr-transparency-and-data-policy` for materials expectations).

## Anti-patterns

- "It's never been studied in country X" as the whole contribution (descriptive, subfield-only)
- A clever method demo with no substantive political-science payoff
- A sprawling question that cannot be answered within the length cap
- Choosing Article length out of habit when a Research Note would land harder

## Output format

```
【Question】one sentence
【General significance】who outside the subfield cares, and why
【Contribution type】theory / test / measurement / reconceptualization / corrected record
【Track】Regular Article / Research Note / Registered Report / Replication / Synthesis
【Fit verdict】strong / needs reframing / off-fit (why)
【Next】apsr-literature-positioning
```

## Supplementary resources

- [`../../resources/external_tools.md`](../../resources/external_tools.md) — data sources by subfield
- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — APSR tracks and scope