Tables & Figures (ajps-tables-figures)

Exhibits are where an expert reviewer checks whether the result is real — and at AJPS they carry two extra constraints. First, the headers and notes of tables and figures count toward the word limit (the body, notes, and printed captions are all in scope; references and online SI are not). Second, every exhibit must be regenerated by the deposited code, because a third-party verifier re-runs it against the main-text numbers. So each exhibit must earn its words and its reproducibility.

When to trigger

• Designing the main results table/figure or a key descriptive exhibit
• Deciding what belongs in the article vs. the online Supporting Information (SI, <= 25 pages for original submissions)
• A reviewer found an exhibit unclear, mislabeled, or not self-contained
• Trimming to the word cap by moving exhibits to the SI

Principles

1. Self-contained. A reader understands each exhibit from its title, axis/column labels, and note

alone — state units, sample, N, and what the estimate is. (Keep notes tight: they count as words.)

1. Figures over dense tables for effects. Coefficient/forest plots, marginal-effects and

predicted-probability plots, event-study and RD plots show magnitude and uncertainty better than a wall of coefficients. Show intervals.

1. Accessible. Colorblind-safe palettes; legible in grayscale; no chartjunk, no 3D. Reviewers must

parse it fast.

1. Main text vs. SI. Keep the few exhibits that carry the argument in the article; move balance

tables, full specifications, and robustness grids to the Supporting Information (<= 25 pages for original submissions, uploaded as "Appendix"). This is also how you fit under 10,000 / 4,000 words.

1. Reproducible and labeled to the code. Each exhibit is generated by the master script; numbers

match the deposited package exactly (the verifier re-runs it — see ajps-replication-and-verification). Name code by exhibit ("Files to Reproduce Table 1").

Discipline-specific exhibits

• Maps for geographic/spatial variation; network diagrams where structure is the point.
• Conjoint AMCE plots; survey-experiment treatment-effect plots.
• For qualitative/multi-method work: timelines, causal-process diagrams, evidence tables linking claims

to sources.

Exhibit-routing table (what AJPS referees expect to find where)

Worked micro-example (illustrative numbers)

A regression-discontinuity study of incumbency advantage reports the RD estimate in one coefficient plot: incumbent vote share jumps 6.2 points (95% CI 2.1-10.3) at the bare-win threshold (illustrative). The first draft buried this in a six-column bandwidth table. The AJPS-aligned fix: promote one RD plot (binned means, local-linear fit, CI band); move the bandwidth grid, density test, and donut-hole checks to the SI. The note states the running variable, bandwidth, N near the cutoff, and estimator — self-contained, with every number traceable to one block of the master script the verifier re-runs.

Referee-pushback patterns and the venue-specific fix

• "Stars but no sense of magnitude." -> Replace the coefficient wall with a predicted-probability or

marginal-effects plot; report the effect on the outcome's natural scale in the note.

• "Unreadable in grayscale / for colorblind readers." -> Colorblind-safe palette, vary line type and

marker shape, confirm it parses in black and white.

• "Exhibit values do not match the deposited code." -> A guaranteed AJPS verification failure; regenerate

every exhibit from the master script and name code by exhibit ("Files to Reproduce Table 1").

Calibration anchor: AJPS verification checks exhibit numbers against re-run code, not the eye, and the cap counts headers and notes — confirm the exact counting rule against the journal's current guidelines.

Execution bridge (StatsPAI / Stata MCP)

Generate exhibits from the fitted result, not by retyping numbers (the usual source of body-vs-supplement drift). Full map: execution-with-mcp. AJPS prizes credible identification across American / comparative / IR subfields; DiD/IV/RDD for observational claims, randomization inference for experiments.

• Tables: etable (multi-model columns) or did_summary_to_latex straight from the

result_id.

• Figures: plot_from_result / enhanced_event_study_plot / event_study_table —

axis units and the SE/clustering note baked in.

• Every note names the estimator + clustering and states the effect size in

interpretable units.

See a full fitted-result → exhibit chain in the JF execution walkthrough.

Anti-patterns

• Tables that need the prose to be intelligible (not self-contained)
• Significance stars with no effect size or interval
• Bloated exhibit notes that quietly eat the word budget
• Cramming every robustness check into the main text instead of the SI
• Exhibit values that the deposited code cannot regenerate (verification fails)

Output format

【Main exhibit】what it shows + why a figure/table
【Self-contained?】title + labels + note + N/units present? [Y/N]
【Word-budget】caption/notes counted toward the limit? [Y/N]
【Accessible?】grayscale-legible + colorblind-safe? [Y/N]
【Article vs SI】split decided (SI <= 25 pp for original submissions)
【Reproducible?】generated by master script, matches package? [Y/N]
【Next】ajps-writing-style

Supplementary resources

• ../../resources/external_tools.md — plotting/mapping/network packages
• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — word-count rule (includes table/figure headers and notes) and 20-page SI limit