---
name: wp-topic-selection
description: Use when deciding whether a project fits World Politics and whether it should be a research article or a review article. World Politics is a comparative-politics + international-relations specialist, so the test is a substantive question that travels across cases or systems — not subfield novelty, and not a single-case description. Helps frame the question; it does not collect data.
---

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

World Politics is a **leading specialist** in comparative politics and international relations. The bar
is not "new to my country case" and not "of general interest to all of political science" — it is **a
substantive political question that travels across cases or systems** and advances theoretical debate.
Use this skill to pressure-test fit before you invest.

## When to trigger

- Choosing among possible projects or framings for a World Politics submission
- A reviewer/colleague said the paper feels "too case-specific" or "just one country"
- Deciding between a **research article** and a **review article**
- Worried the topic may be out of scope (policy/opinion, theory-only, historical, journalistic)

## The World Politics fit test

A strong research article usually clears all four:

1. **Comparative or IR substance.** The question concerns the central problems of **comparative
   politics or international relations** — regimes, institutions, conflict, cooperation, development,
   identity, political economy — not a discipline-agnostic methods demo and not pure IR theory alone.
2. **It travels.** The argument or mechanism applies **beyond a single case**: cross-national,
   cross-regional, or a theoretically motivated comparison. A lone case must be a case *of* something
   general (see `wp-theory-building`).
3. **Theory + original empirics.** It "poses important substantive questions, significantly advances
   theoretical debates, and presents original empirical research." A finding without theoretical
   payoff, or theory with no evidence, is off-fit.
4. **In scope.** Not an opinion or policy piece, not stand-alone political theory, not a historical
   article, not a current-affairs/journalistic narrative — these are explicit non-fits.

## Research article vs. review article

- **Research article** — full original study (theory + empirics), **≤ 12,500 words** including notes
  and references.
- **Review article** — analyzes and compares a set of **thematically related books** *and* advances
  how the field should pursue future work (distinct from a book review). **Usually commissioned**;
  pitch the editors before drafting (待核实 on current commissioning practice).

## Differentiation (so you target the right venue)

| If your question is… | World Politics fit |
|----------------------|--------------------|
| comparative + cross-case (regimes, conflict, development) | **strong** — core scope |
| IR with comparative leverage | **strong** — core scope |
| general-interest, any subfield | likely APSR / AJPS / JOP, not the specialist World Politics |
| single-country description, no travel | reframe for generality or target an area journal |
| pure IR theory with no empirics | reframe; World Politics wants original empirical research |

## Anti-patterns

- "It's never been studied in country X" as the whole contribution (single-case, doesn't travel)
- A method demonstration with no comparative/IR substantive payoff
- An opinion, policy, theory-only, historical, or journalistic piece (out of scope)
- Drafting an unsolicited review article without confirming the commissioning norm

## Fit-objection patterns and the venue-specific fix

The earliest screen is fit, so the objections that kill a project here are about scope and travel —
each with a reframe.

| Objection at fit stage | The reframe this skill drives |
|------------------------|-------------------------------|
| "Too case-specific / just one country" | Make the lone case a case *of* a general mechanism, or add a comparison |
| "Reads as a methods demonstration" | Anchor it to a comparative or IR substantive payoff, not technique |
| "This is policy / current affairs" | Recast as theory-driven empirical analysis, or target a policy outlet |
| "Of general interest, not specialist" | Decide honestly between World Politics and a generalist venue (APSR/AJPS/JOP) |

Calibration anchor: World Politics is a comparative-politics-and-IR specialist that prizes big
theoretical questions and research design over narrow empirics, and it also runs analytical review
essays. It is not a discipline-wide generalist and not IR-only — so a question with cross-case
leverage on regimes, conflict, development, or institutions fits where a single-subfield novelty does not.

## Worked micro-example (illustrative)

A scholar has rich data on **one country's land-reform program**. Two framings:

```text
Off-fit:  "first quantitative study of country X's 1990s land reform" (single-case, doesn't travel)
On-fit:   "when does land reform defuse vs ignite rural conflict?" — country X as one case in a
          paired comparison, mechanism = redistribution-vs-expropriation credibility, testable
          across other reforming states
Type:     research article (a review article would instead synthesize related books + set an agenda)
```

The on-fit framing poses a substantive question that travels and carries theoretical payoff. (Scope
norms can change; confirm against the current scope statement.)

## Output format

```
【Question】one sentence
【Domain】comparative politics / IR / both
【Travels across cases?】how the argument generalizes [Y/N]
【Type】research article / review article
【In scope?】not opinion/policy/theory-only/historical/journalistic [Y/N]
【Fit verdict】strong / needs reframing / off-fit (why)
【Next】wp-literature-positioning
```

## Supplementary resources

- [`../../resources/external_tools.md`](../../resources/external_tools.md) — comparative + IR data sources
- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — World Politics scope and article types