Topic Selection & Fit (poq-topic-selection)
POQ selectively publishes work in three areas: theoretical contributions to opinion and
communication research, analyses of current public opinion, and investigations of
methodological issues involved in survey validity. The bar is not "uses a survey" — it is a real
contribution to how we understand opinion or how we measure it. Use this skill to pressure-test
fit before you invest.
When to trigger
- Choosing among possible projects or framings for a POQ submission
- A reviewer/colleague said the paper is "just another survey analysis" with no methods or opinion payoff
- Deciding among Original Article, Research Note, Polls in Context, and Research Synthesis
- Unsure whether the contribution is substantive (opinion) or methodological (survey science)
The POQ fit test
A strong POQ paper usually clears all four:
- A public-opinion or survey-methods contribution. It advances opinion/communication theory,
illuminates current public opinion, or improves survey validity (coverage, sampling, nonresponse,
measurement, mode, weighting). State which.
- Engages survey error seriously. The design and claims are framed in terms of Total Survey
Error, not a single error source. POQ readers are survey scientists.
- Disclosable to AAPOR standards. You can report exact question wording, population, sample
design, mode and dates, response rate per AAPOR Standard Definitions, sample sizes/precision,
and weighting/clustering effects (see
poq-survey-design-and-measurement).
- A clean, answerable scope sized to the type — ≤ 6,500 words (Article), < 3,000 (Note),
≤ 2,500 (Polls in Context).
Contribution framing
| If the contribution is… |
Frame it as… |
| Substantive opinion finding |
what it changes about how we understand attitudes, behavior, or communication |
| Methodological |
what survey-error source it reduces or quantifies, and for whom it generalizes |
| Trend / current opinion |
why this movement matters now and how the polls support the read (Polls in Context) |
| Replication / extension |
which influential finding it tests and what is newly learned (Research Note) |
Type choice
- Original Article — full study, broad claim, ≤ 6,500 words of text and notes.
- Research Note — one crisp contribution (a single finding, a decisive replication, a focused
methods result), < 3,000 words. Do not pad it into an Article.
- Polls in Context — short, timely interpretation of current poll data, ≤ 2,500 words.
- Research Synthesis — integrative review consolidating a literature, ≤ 6,500 words.
Reframing toward POQ (before → after)
The same study often clears or fails the fit test depending on how the question is posed. Three
micro-rewrites in the POQ register:
- Topic survey → opinion theory. Before: "We surveyed 2,000 adults about climate change." →
After: "Using a probability panel, we test whether motivated reasoning or elite-cue exposure
better explains the partisan gap in climate attitudes." The dataset is the same; the second
version names a theoretical mechanism POQ readers can adjudicate.
- Method demo → survey validity. Before: "We compare two question formats." → After: "We
quantify how much measurement error a forced-choice versus check-all format introduces in
sensitive-behavior reports, and for which respondent groups." Now the payoff is an error source
(measurement) with stated generalizability.
- Poll dump → current opinion. Before: "Recent polls on issue X are summarized." → After:
"Three probability polls fielded across the campaign show opinion moved only among low-attention
independents — evidence against the saturation account." That is a Polls in Context claim, not a
compilation.
If no rewrite produces a mechanism, an error source, or an interpretable movement in opinion, the
project is off-fit — stop before drafting.
Anti-patterns
- "We ran a survey on topic X" with no opinion-theory or survey-methods payoff
- A method demo with no survey-validity stakes a POQ reader would recognize
- A finding that cannot be disclosed to AAPOR standards (no wording, no response rate)
- Choosing Article length out of habit when a Research Note would land harder
Output format
【Question】one sentence
【Contribution】opinion-theory / current-opinion / survey-validity (which?)
【Survey-error frame】coverage / sampling / nonresponse / measurement / mode / adjustment
【Disclosable to AAPOR standards?】[Y/N — what's missing]
【Type】Original Article / Research Note / Polls in Context / Research Synthesis
【Fit verdict】strong / needs reframing / off-fit (why)
【Next】poq-literature-positioning
Supplementary resources
Source: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills → Public-Opinion-Quarterly-Skills/skills/poq-topic-selection/SKILL.md
1---2name: poq-topic-selection3description: Use when deciding whether a project fits Public Opinion Quarterly (POQ) and which submission type to target. POQ is the leading journal of public opinion and survey methodology, so the test is a contribution to opinion/communication theory, to current public opinion, or to survey validity — not a generic social-science finding. Helps frame the question; it does not collect data.4---567# Topic Selection & Fit (poq-topic-selection)89POQ selectively publishes work in three areas: **theoretical contributions to opinion and10communication research**, **analyses of current public opinion**, and **investigations of11methodological issues involved in survey validity**. The bar is not "uses a survey" — it is a real12contribution to **how we understand opinion or how we measure it**. Use this skill to pressure-test13fit before you invest.1415## When to trigger1617- Choosing among possible projects or framings for a POQ submission18- A reviewer/colleague said the paper is "just another survey analysis" with no methods or opinion payoff19- Deciding among **Original Article**, **Research Note**, **Polls in Context**, and **Research Synthesis**20- Unsure whether the contribution is substantive (opinion) or methodological (survey science)2122## The POQ fit test2324A strong POQ paper usually clears all four:25261. **A public-opinion or survey-methods contribution.** It advances opinion/communication theory,27 illuminates current public opinion, or improves survey validity (coverage, sampling, nonresponse,28 measurement, mode, weighting). State which.292. **Engages survey error seriously.** The design and claims are framed in terms of **Total Survey30 Error**, not a single error source. POQ readers are survey scientists.313. **Disclosable to AAPOR standards.** You can report exact question wording, population, sample32 design, mode and dates, **response rate per AAPOR Standard Definitions**, sample sizes/precision,33 and weighting/clustering effects (see `poq-survey-design-and-measurement`).344. **A clean, answerable scope** sized to the type — ≤ 6,500 words (Article), < 3,000 (Note),35 ≤ 2,500 (Polls in Context).3637## Contribution framing3839| If the contribution is… | Frame it as… |40|-------------------------|--------------|41| Substantive opinion finding | what it changes about how we understand attitudes, behavior, or communication |42| Methodological | what survey-error source it reduces or quantifies, and for whom it generalizes |43| Trend / current opinion | why this movement matters now and how the polls support the read (Polls in Context) |44| Replication / extension | which influential finding it tests and what is newly learned (Research Note) |4546## Type choice4748- **Original Article** — full study, broad claim, ≤ 6,500 words of text and notes.49- **Research Note** — one crisp contribution (a single finding, a decisive replication, a focused50 methods result), < 3,000 words. Do not pad it into an Article.51- **Polls in Context** — short, timely interpretation of current poll data, ≤ 2,500 words.52- **Research Synthesis** — integrative review consolidating a literature, ≤ 6,500 words.5354## Reframing toward POQ (before → after)5556The same study often clears or fails the fit test depending on how the question is posed. Three57micro-rewrites in the POQ register:5859- **Topic survey → opinion theory.** *Before:* "We surveyed 2,000 adults about climate change." →60 *After:* "Using a probability panel, we test whether motivated reasoning or elite-cue exposure61 better explains the partisan gap in climate attitudes." The dataset is the same; the second62 version names a theoretical mechanism POQ readers can adjudicate.63- **Method demo → survey validity.** *Before:* "We compare two question formats." → *After:* "We64 quantify how much measurement error a forced-choice versus check-all format introduces in65 sensitive-behavior reports, and for which respondent groups." Now the payoff is an error source66 (measurement) with stated generalizability.67- **Poll dump → current opinion.** *Before:* "Recent polls on issue X are summarized." → *After:*68 "Three probability polls fielded across the campaign show opinion moved only among low-attention69 independents — evidence against the saturation account." That is a Polls in Context claim, not a70 compilation.7172If no rewrite produces a mechanism, an error source, or an interpretable movement in opinion, the73project is off-fit — stop before drafting.7475## Anti-patterns7677- "We ran a survey on topic X" with no opinion-theory or survey-methods payoff78- A method demo with no survey-validity stakes a POQ reader would recognize79- A finding that cannot be disclosed to AAPOR standards (no wording, no response rate)80- Choosing Article length out of habit when a Research Note would land harder8182## Output format8384```85【Question】one sentence86【Contribution】opinion-theory / current-opinion / survey-validity (which?)87【Survey-error frame】coverage / sampling / nonresponse / measurement / mode / adjustment88【Disclosable to AAPOR standards?】[Y/N — what's missing]89【Type】Original Article / Research Note / Polls in Context / Research Synthesis90【Fit verdict】strong / needs reframing / off-fit (why)91【Next】poq-literature-positioning92```9394## Supplementary resources9596- [`../../resources/external_tools.md`](../../resources/external_tools.md) — survey data sources and methodology toolkit97- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — POQ scope and submission types9899---100101**Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `Public-Opinion-Quarterly-Skills/skills/poq-topic-selection/SKILL.md`