Comparative Political Studies Skills
Agent skill stack for manuscripts targeted at Comparative Political Studies (CPS) — a leading comparative-politics journal published by SAGE since 1968, submitted via SAGE Track (ScholarOne) under anonymous peer review. CPS publishes comparative work on democratization & regimes, political institutions, political behavior & participation, ethnic politics & conflict, comparative political economy,
Skills in this plugin
12- ▌ Cps Rebuttal · brycewang-stanfordUse when responding to a Comparative Political Studies (CPS) revise-and-resubmit decision — structuring the response letter to multiple anonymous reviewers and the editor. Plans the revision and response; it does not fabricate results or relitigate the decision.
- ▌ Cps Workflow · brycewang-stanfordUse when starting or navigating any Comparative Political Studies (CPS) manuscript and you need the right next sub-skill, chosen by lifecycle stage and whether the paper makes a genuinely comparative claim across countries or over time. It dispatches; it does not draft content.
- ▌ Cps Submission · brycewang-stanford bundleUse when preparing the final Comparative Political Studies (CPS) submission package for SAGE Track (ScholarOne) — anonymization, word count, abstract, ORCID, title page, and data availability statement. Runs the submission preflight; it does not draft the manuscript.
- ▌ Cps Data Analysis · brycewang-stanfordUse when running and reporting the analyses for a Comparative Political Studies (CPS) manuscript — estimation, uncertainty, robustness, and multi-method triangulation on comparative data. Sets analysis norms; it does not choose the identification strategy (see cps-research-design).
- ▌ Cps Writing Style · brycewang-stanfordUse when drafting or polishing the prose of a Comparative Political Studies (CPS) manuscript so it reaches comparativists, fits the 11,000-word limit, and follows CPS house formatting. Improves writing and formatting; it does not change the analysis.
- ▌ Cps Review Process · brycewang-stanfordUse when anticipating how a Comparative Political Studies (CPS) manuscript will be evaluated — desk screening, anonymous peer review, decision categories, and how reviewers judge comparative work. Calibrates expectations; it does not write the submission or the rebuttal.
- ▌ Cps Tables Figures · brycewang-stanfordUse when designing tables and figures for a Comparative Political Studies (CPS) manuscript so each exhibit is self-contained, comparative-legible, and SAGE-ready. Improves the exhibits; it does not run the analysis or set the data policy.
- ▌ Cps Research Design · brycewang-stanfordUse when defending the research design of a Comparative Political Studies (CPS) manuscript — cross-national/panel identification, case-based comparison and process tracing, experiments, or multi-method designs. CPS prizes comparative leverage. Strengthens the design; it does not write code.
- ▌ Cps Theory Building · brycewang-stanfordUse when building or sharpening the theoretical argument of a Comparative Political Studies (CPS) manuscript so it yields portable, testable comparative implications. Builds the mechanism and its observable implications; it does not run the empirics.
- ▌ Cps Topic Selection · brycewang-stanfordUse when deciding whether a research question fits Comparative Political Studies (CPS) and how to frame its comparative contribution. Tests comparative leverage and travel; it does not design the study or write the paper.
- ▌ Cps Transparency And Data · brycewang-stanfordUse when preparing the replication and transparency materials for a Comparative Political Studies (CPS) manuscript. Quantitative papers cannot be finally accepted until replication materials are deposited at the CPS Dataverse; a data availability statement is required. Prepares the package; it does not waive requirements.
- ▌ Cps Literature Positioning · brycewang-stanfordUse when positioning a Comparative Political Studies (CPS) manuscript against the comparative-politics literature and the rival explanations it must beat. Sharpens the gap and the engaged debate; it does not build the theory or design the study.