agentsclimarketplace

Poq review process

Skill brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/Public-Opinion-Quarterly-Skills/skills/poq-review-process

Journal-specific Claude Code/Codex skill packs covering mainstream journals — AER, QJE, Nature, Cell, 管理世界, 经济研究 & 200+ more — your fast track to getting published. ｜ 覆盖主流期刊的 Claude Code/Codex 期刊技能包，从选题、识别策略到表格规范与审稿回复全流程，助你快速发论文。

Install
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill poq-review-process

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

Use to understand how Public Opinion Quarterly (POQ) evaluates a manuscript — double-blind review via ScholarOne Manuscripts, typically two to three referees, the survey-methodology and AAPOR-disclosure bar reviewers apply, and how associate editors may request code/data during review. Sets expectations and shapes the paper to survive review; it does not contact editors.

SKILL.md

5.1 KB, ~1.0k tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it

Review Process (poq-review-process)

Knowing how POQ screens and decides lets you pre-empt the failure modes before submitting. POQ runs a double-blind process via ScholarOne Manuscripts, with manuscripts typically evaluated by at least two (most often three) referees who are survey scientists. They will scrutinize survey error and AAPOR-standard disclosure as hard as the substantive claim.

When to trigger

  • Before submitting, to stress-test against the failure modes POQ reviewers catch
  • Choosing the submission type and anticipating reviewer expectations for it
  • Interpreting a decision letter and setting expectations
  • Understanding what associate editors may request (code/data) during review

How POQ review works

  1. Double-blind. Reviewers do not know the authors and authors do not know reviewers. Anonymize the manuscript accordingly (see poq-submission).
  2. Editorial handling. An associate editor manages the paper; the AE may request code and data as a necessary part of peer review — have your replication materials ready, not just at acceptance.
  3. Referees. Typically two to three expert referees evaluate the work.
  4. What referees weigh (POQ-specific):
    • Contribution — to opinion/communication theory, current opinion, or survey validity.
    • Survey design & Total Survey Error — coverage, sampling, nonresponse, measurement, mode, weighting.
    • AAPOR disclosure — is Appendix A complete? Is the response rate computed per AAPOR Standard Definitions? Are sampling and weighting documented?
    • Analysis — design-based inference; reproducibility.
  5. Decision categories — reject, revise-and-resubmit, or accept (typical journal practice; confirm current wording — 待核实). Acceptance generally needs the referees persuaded on both substance and method.

Shape the paper to pass

  • Make the contribution type explicit (opinion vs. methods) so referees judge it on the right terms.
  • Complete Appendix A and report the response rate per AAPOR definitions before submitting — a missing disclosure element is an easy, avoidable strike.
  • Use design-based inference; weights/strata/clusters in the variance, not just the estimate.
  • Have replication materials ready in case the AE requests them during review.
  • Anticipate the artifact-vs-effect objection and answer it in the design (see poq-survey-design-and-measurement).

Anti-patterns

  • An incomplete or missing Appendix A (disclosure failure reviewers flag immediately)
  • A response rate with no AAPOR definition; undocumented weighting
  • Naive IID inference on a complex sample
  • Assuming code/data are only needed at acceptance — the AE may ask during review
  • Sending an under-anonymized manuscript into a double-blind process

Review-risk pass for Public Opinion Quarterly

Run this as a concrete capability pass. First lock the public-opinion construct, sampling frame, mode effects, weighting/nonresponse plan, and trend or causal interpretation; then test whether the manuscript addresses survey and public-opinion reviewers who inspect measurement, sampling, mode, nonresponse, and inference about attitudes or behavior.

  • Primary move: Turn likely reviewer objections into a ledger with response evidence, manuscript location, and the decision-maker who must be convinced first.
  • Decision ledger: return claim / evidence / blocker / next edit rows so the next pass can patch the manuscript directly.
  • Sibling comparison: compare against Political Analysis for methods-first work, Journal of Politics for political-science theory, Communication Research for media-effects framing; if the neighboring outlet has the stronger audience claim, recommend re-routing before polishing.
  • Verification floor: before submission-ready advice, re-open resources/official-source-map.md for volatile rules and name the one unresolved fact that could change the recommendation.

Output format

【Contribution clear】opinion / current-opinion / survey-validity? [Y/N]
【TSE addressed】coverage/sampling/nonresponse/measurement/mode/weighting? [Y/N]
【Appendix A + AAPOR response rate】complete? [Y/N]
【Design-based inference】weights/strata/clusters in variance? [Y/N]
【Replication ready for AE request】[Y/N]
【Realistic outcome】reject / R&R / (rare) accept
【Next】poq-submission (or poq-rebuttal if decided)

Supplementary resources

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 328,083. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.