---
name: brycewang-stanford/apsr-writing-style
source: https://app.decimal.ai/s/brycewang-stanford-apsr-writing-style@1/SKILL.md
source_sha256: 96a6e83f4e7a
---

# 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."
2. **Minimize subfield jargon** or define it on first use; an IR reader should follow an Americanist
   paper. Spell out acronyms.
3. **Argument-first prose.** Lead with claims; use evidence to support them. Avoid "the data show…"
   without saying what they show and why it matters.
4. **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