# Poq Writing Style > Use when drafting or polishing a Public Opinion Quarterly (POQ) manuscript so it reads for a public-opinion and survey-methodology audience and fits the type caps (Original Article ≤ 6,500 words of text and notes; Research Note < 3,000; Polls in Context ≤ 2,500). POQ word counts cover text and notes but exclude figures, tables, references, and appendices. Tightens prose and format; it does not invent content. - Skill: `thedixitjain/poq-writing-style` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds add thedixitjain/poq-writing-style` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/thedixitjain/poq-writing-style/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Docs & Writing - Author: thedixitjain (https://skillmd.com/u/thedixitjain) - Updated: 2026-09-08 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/thedixitjain/poq-writing-style --- # Writing Style (poq-writing-style) A POQ paper must be readable by both substantive opinion scholars and survey methodologists, and disciplined to the cap for its type. The word count covers **text and notes** but **excludes figures, tables, references, and appendices** — so the AAPOR disclosure appendix and exhibits do not count against you. This skill is about reaching the POQ audience and respecting format — not generating claims. ## When to trigger - Drafting the introduction, framing the contribution, or final polish - Over the word cap and needing to cut without losing the argument - Writing the abstract (confirm the current requirement — 待核实 on exact cap) - Aligning citations and format before submission ## Reach the POQ audience 1. **Front-load the contribution.** By the end of the introduction the reader knows the question, the data, the finding, and whether the contribution is to **opinion theory, current opinion, or survey validity**. Do not bury the "so what." 2. **Name the methodological move plainly.** State the survey design and the error source you address; POQ readers expect to see coverage/nonresponse/wording/mode/weighting handled, not glossed. 3. **Define jargon on first use.** A communication scholar should follow a methods paper and vice versa; spell out acronyms (AAPOR, TSE, RR, DEFF, AMCE, MRP) on first appearance. 4. **Argument-first prose.** Lead with claims; use design-based evidence to support them. Avoid "the data show…" without saying what they show and why it matters. ## Format & front matter - **Citations**: keep one consistent reference style (manage with Zotero/BibTeX); references excluded from the word count. - **Disclosure**: ensure the **"Appendix A: Disclosure Elements"** is present and referenced (see `poq-survey-design-and-measurement`); it does not count toward the cap. - **Anonymize**: POQ is **double-blind** — no author names/affiliations/acknowledgments in the manuscript, no obvious self-references, strip identifying file metadata. - **Data Availability Statement**: plan the DAS for the endmatter (see `poq-transparency-and-data-policy`). ## Fit the type cap (text + notes; excludes figures, tables, references, appendices) - Move detailed methods, full specifications, and extended robustness to **appendices** (excluded). - Cut throat-clearing and literature dumps; engage the debate, not every paper (see `poq-literature-positioning`). - Tighten footnotes — they **count** toward the limit (notes are in the cap). - Prefer one decisive trend figure to three redundant tables. ## Micro-rewrites in the POQ register - **Claim-first, not data-first.** *Before:* "The data show significant differences across demographic groups (p < .05)." → *After:* "Partisanship, not education, drives the gap: the partisan difference is 23 points versus 4 points across education levels." POQ readers want the substantive magnitude, then the inference. - **Name the error source, don't gesture.** *Before:* "We account for potential survey biases." → *After:* "Because the panel under-covers non-internet households, we benchmark against the CPS and weight on the coverage-related variables." A survey scientist can now evaluate the fix. - **Un-bury the contribution.** *Before:* an intro that spends four paragraphs on the history of polarization research. → *After:* paragraph two ends with "We show that item wording, not true attitude change, produced the apparent trend — a measurement contribution." State the lane (opinion theory / current opinion / survey validity) in the intro, in those terms. Two referee tics worth pre-empting: POQ methodologists flag any inference language ("significant," "effect") that outruns the design (cross-sectional, nonprobability), and substantive referees flag acronym walls — one undefined DEFF or AMCE in the intro reads as writing for insiders only. ## Anti-patterns - An intro that never states whether the contribution is to opinion or to survey methods - Burying the methodological move (how error was handled) deep in the paper - Padding a Research Note (< 3,000) or Polls in Context (≤ 2,500) toward Article length - Acknowledgments or self-references that break double-blind anonymity - Putting disclosable methods in long footnotes (which count) instead of Appendix A (which does not) ## Output format ``` 【Contribution stated by end of intro?】opinion / current-opinion / survey-validity [Y/N] 【Methodological move named?】error source + design plain? [Y/N] 【Abstract】present + within current requirement (待核实) 【Word count】Article ≤6,500 / Note <3,000 / Polls ≤2,500 (text + notes)? 【Anonymized + DAS planned + Appendix A referenced】[Y/N] 【Next】poq-transparency-and-data-policy ``` ## Supplementary resources - [`../../resources/external_tools.md`](../../resources/external_tools.md) — reference managers and writing tooling - [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — type caps, what the word count includes, double-blind anonymity --- **Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `Public-Opinion-Quarterly-Skills/skills/poq-writing-style/SKILL.md`