Writing Conventions for Political Science
APSA style follows Chicago author–date
The American Political Science Association style manual is built on the Chicago author–date system, with in-text parenthetical citations and a references list. Drafting in Chicago author–date puts you close to compliant before any journal-specific pass.
Subfields have genuinely different norms in the same journal
A formal theory paper leads with a model and proofs, a quantitative paper with an identification strategy, and a political theory paper with a conceptual argument and no data section at all. Writing to the wrong subfield’s template is a common reason a submission reads as misplaced.
Case selection has to be defended, not just described
Qualitative and comparative work states why these cases — most-similar, most-different, deviant, or typical — and what the choice can and cannot support. An unjustified case set invites the criticism that the finding was selected rather than discovered.
Hypotheses are stated as directional expectations
Empirical papers derive expectations from theory and state the direction: increases in X should raise the probability of Y, and here is the causal logic. Observable implications are listed explicitly so a reader knows what evidence would count against you.
Normative and positive claims are kept visibly separate
“States comply with this treaty” and “states ought to comply” are different sentences requiring different justification. Political theory argues normatively by design; empirical work that slides into ought-claims in the conclusion draws immediate objections.
Replication and data access are part of the manuscript
Many journals require deposited replication files, and qualitative work is increasingly expected to document its sources and coding decisions. Write the design section as if someone will attempt to reproduce it, because they might.
