# Poq Topic Selection

> 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.

- Skill: `thedixitjain/poq-topic-selection` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds add thedixitjain/poq-topic-selection`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/thedixitjain/poq-topic-selection/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Research & Search
- Author: thedixitjain (https://skillmd.com/u/thedixitjain)
- Updated: 2026-09-08
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/thedixitjain/poq-topic-selection

---



# 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:

1. **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.
2. **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.
3. **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`).
4. **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

- [`../../resources/external_tools.md`](../../resources/external_tools.md) — survey data sources and methodology toolkit
- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — POQ scope and submission types

---

**Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `Public-Opinion-Quarterly-Skills/skills/poq-topic-selection/SKILL.md`