By name: ajps-writing-style description: Use when drafting or polishing an American Journal of Political Science (AJPS) manuscript so it fits the word caps (Articles <= 10,000 words; Research Notes and Correspondence <= 4,000; abstract <= 150 words), follows the APSA Style Manual or Chicago 18th edition, and stays fully anonymized for double-blind review. Tightens prose and format; it does not invent content.
Writing Style (ajps-writing-style)
An AJPS paper must be tightly argued, formatted to one accepted style, disciplined to the word cap, and fully anonymized for double-blind review. This skill is about clarity, format, and the AJPS-specific counting rules — not about 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 <= 150-word abstract
- Aligning citations/format to APSA or Chicago style before submission
Write tight and lead with the contribution
- Front-load the contribution. By the end of the introduction the reader knows the question, the argument, the design, the finding, and why it matters. Do not bury the "so what."
- Argument-first prose. Lead with claims; use evidence to support them. Avoid "the data show..." without saying what they show and why it matters.
- Reach a broad readership. AJPS spans subfields; define niche jargon on first use and spell out acronyms.
- Signpost. Clear section structure so a reader can navigate the argument.
Format and the AJPS word-count rule
- Style: APSA Style Manual for Political Science (rev. 2018, updated 2023) or Chicago Manual of Style (18th ed.) — pick one and apply it consistently; references use authors' full first and last names. Double-spaced, 12-point, >= one-inch margins.
- Abstract: <= 150 words, covering background, hypotheses, methodological approach, findings, and conclusions.
- Word count (put it on the title page along with the abstract): includes the main body, notes,
parenthetical references, print appendices, and table/figure headers and notes; excludes the
title page, abstract, reference list, online Supporting Information, and mathematical notation.
- Articles <= 10,000; Research Notes and Correspondence <= 4,000.
Stay double-blind in the prose
- No author names, affiliations, acknowledgments, funding statements, or conference mentions in the manuscript.
- Third-person self-citation only — never "as we showed" / "in our prior work."
- Put the abstract and word count on the title page; the manuscript file itself stays anonymous.
Fit the word cap
- Move balance tables, full specs, and extended robustness to the Supporting Information (<= 25 pp for original submissions).
- Tighten footnotes and exhibit notes — they count toward the limit.
- Cut throat-clearing and the literature dump; engage the debate, not every paper (see
ajps-literature-positioning).
Word-budget triage table (where to cut first at AJPS)
| If over the cap... | Cut/move here first | Why it works at AJPS |
|---|---|---|
| Long literature section | Engage the debate, drop the citation pile | Generalist readership wants the argument, not a survey |
| Robustness grids in body | Move to SI (<= 25 pp for original submissions) | SI is excluded from the word count |
| Bloated exhibit notes / throat-clearing intro | Tighten notes; front-load the contribution | Headers and notes count; reviewers reward an early "so what" |
Worked micro-example (illustrative)
A first draft runs 11,300 words against the 10,000 cap for an Article (illustrative). The fix: a three-paragraph literature dump collapses into one debate-framing paragraph (-600), two robustness tables move to the SI (-500), and footnotes tighten (-200). The intro is rewritten so its last sentence gives the reader the question, design, finding, and stakes. A self-cite "as we showed in 2021" becomes a third-person citation. Final body lands near 9,900 words, abstract at 138 (illustrative).
Referee-pushback patterns and the venue-specific fix
- "The contribution is buried." -> State the question, argument, design, and finding by the end of the introduction; AJPS reviewers expect the payoff up front.
- "References mix styles / use last-name-plus-initial." -> Pick APSA or Chicago 18th and apply it consistently with full first and last names; spell out acronyms for the cross-subfield AJPS audience.
Calibration anchor: AJPS caps Articles at 10,000 words and the abstract at 150, counting notes and exhibit captions but excluding the reference list and online SI; confirm the exact caps and accepted style against the journal's current guidelines.
Anti-patterns
- An abstract over 150 words or one that hides the finding
- Burying the contribution in the middle of the paper
- Mixing APSA and Chicago styles, or last-name-plus-initial references
- Acknowledgments, funding lines, or first-person self-references that break anonymity
- Letting exhibit notes and footnotes silently push the paper over the cap
Output format
【Contribution stated by end of intro?】[Y/N]
【Abstract】word count (<=150), states finding?
【Word count】Article <=10,000 / Note|Correspondence <=4,000 (incl. notes + table/figure captions)?
【Style】APSA or Chicago 18th, applied consistently? full names in refs?
【Anonymized】no names/affiliations/acknowledgments/funding; third-person self-cites? [Y/N]
【Next】ajps-replication-and-verification
Supplementary resources
../../resources/official-source-map.md— word/abstract caps, APSA-or-Chicago style, anonymizing rules