---
name: apsr-topic-selection
description: Use when deciding whether a political-science project fits the American Political Science Review (APSR) and which of its five tracks to target. APSR is the discipline's generalist flagship, so the test is general significance across subfields, not subfield novelty alone. Helps frame the question; it does not collect data.
---

# Topic Selection & Fit (apsr-topic-selection)

APSR is the **general-interest flagship** of political science. The bar is not "new to my subfield" —
it is **"matters to the discipline."** Use this skill to pressure-test fit before you invest.

## When to trigger

- Choosing among possible projects or framings for an APSR submission
- A reviewer/colleague said the paper feels "too narrow" or "subfield-only"
- Deciding between a **Regular Article** and a **Research Note**
- Considering **Registered Reports** (prospective design) or **Replications and Reappraisals**

## The APSR fit test

A strong APSR paper usually clears all four:

1. **General significance.** A scholar in a *different* subfield (e.g., a comparativist reading an
   Americanist paper) should see why it matters. State the stakes for politics broadly — power,
   institutions, behavior, representation, conflict, justice.
2. **A real contribution, not just a finding.** It changes how the field thinks, measures, or argues
   — a new theory, a decisive test, a reconceptualization, a corrected record.
3. **Credible on its own methodological terms.** Quantitative, qualitative, formal, experimental, or
   interpretive — each is welcome, but each must be done rigorously (see `apsr-research-design`).
4. **A clean, answerable scope.** The question is sharp enough to answer convincingly within
   ~11,000 words (Article) or ~7,000 (Research Note).

## Subfield framing (write past your home subfield)

| Home subfield | Reach to the discipline by… |
|---------------|------------------------------|
| American politics | tie to representation, institutions, or behavior that travels beyond the US case |
| Comparative | draw the general mechanism, not just the country case; speak to theory others can use |
| International relations | connect to cooperation, conflict, or institutions as general phenomena |
| Political theory | show why the normative/conceptual stakes matter for empirical work or public life |
| Methodology | show what substantive questions the method newly answers — not method for its own sake |

## Track choice

- **Regular Article** — full study, broad claim, < 11,000 words.
- **Research Note** — one crisp contribution (a decisive test, a measurement advance, a focused
  reappraisal), < 7,000 words. Faster to read; do not pad it into an Article.
- **Registered Report** — you have a strong *design* but no results yet; get in-principle acceptance
  on the design (see `apsr-review-process`).
- **Replications and Reappraisals** — your contribution is to re-examine an influential published
  result (see `apsr-transparency-and-data-policy` for materials expectations).

## Anti-patterns

- "It's never been studied in country X" as the whole contribution (descriptive, subfield-only)
- A clever method demo with no substantive political-science payoff
- A sprawling question that cannot be answered within the length cap
- Choosing Article length out of habit when a Research Note would land harder

## Output format

```
【Question】one sentence
【General significance】who outside the subfield cares, and why
【Contribution type】theory / test / measurement / reconceptualization / corrected record
【Track】Regular Article / Research Note / Registered Report / Replication / Synthesis
【Fit verdict】strong / needs reframing / off-fit (why)
【Next】apsr-literature-positioning
```

## Supplementary resources

- [`../../resources/external_tools.md`](../../resources/external_tools.md) — data sources by subfield
- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — APSR tracks and scope