Poq Review Process

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

• ../../resources/external_tools.md — disclosure checklist and design-based analysis tools
• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — double-blind review, referee count, AE code/data requests

Source: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills → Public-Opinion-Quarterly-Skills/skills/poq-review-process/SKILL.md