Writing Style (cps-writing-style)

A CPS paper must read for the comparative-politics community: a comparativist of another region should follow the argument, see the leverage, and grasp the portable claim. Write argument-first, keep the prose tight against the word cap, and follow CPS/SAGE house formatting (APA-style author-date references, unstructured 150-word abstract).

When to trigger

• Drafting the introduction, abstract, or conclusion; tightening prose for the word limit
• A reviewer found the paper hard to follow, parochial, jargon-heavy, or over the limit
• Formatting references, headings, and the abstract to CPS/SAGE house style
• Checking that the contribution is stated early and travels

The CPS introduction arc

Lead with the comparative puzzle, then the stake, then why it is hard to identify, then the setting & design, then the headline finding with mechanism, then the portable contribution, then a brief roadmap. By the end of the introduction the reader knows the question, the argument, the evidence, and why it matters to comparative politics — not just to one country's specialists.

• Argument-first. State the claim and the contribution on page one; do not bury them behind a

literature tour or lead with the estimator.

• Travel up front. Frame the contribution so a comparativist of another region sees what to import.
• Define, don't drown. Define region- or method-specific terms; minimize jargon so the paper reads

past your subfield within comparative politics.

House formatting (verify current SAGE guidelines)

Length and house style change — confirm on the SAGE author-instructions page; treat figures above as the working norm.

Tightening for the word cap

• Cut the over-signposted multi-section roadmap; let the argument do the work.
• Move full robustness grids and secondary material to the supplementary/online appendix (does not count

toward the limit) — but keep the story in the main text.

• Replace "it is important to note that" throat-clearing with the claim itself.

Checklist

• [ ] Question, argument, and finding are clear by the end of the introduction
• [ ] Contribution stated early and framed to travel to other regions
• [ ] Reads for a comparativist outside the paper's region; jargon defined or removed
• [ ] Within the 11,000-word limit (references/tables/figures excluded)
• [ ] Unstructured ~150-word abstract present
• [ ] APA-style author-date references; in-text and list agree exactly
• [ ] Identifying info removed from the main file (anonymized for review)

Anti-patterns

• Leading with the estimator instead of the question and argument
• Parochial framing that only a specialist on your country would value
• Burying the contribution mid-paper after a long literature tour
• Over the word limit, or padding with an over-signposted seven-section roadmap
• Mixed citation styles, or in-text cites with no matching reference-list entry

Output format

【Intro arc】puzzle → stake → identification problem → design → finding+mechanism → portable contribution → roadmap
【Travels?】contribution framed for a comparativist of another region [Y/N]
【Length】words / 11,000 (refs/tables/figures excluded)
【Abstract】unstructured, ~150 words [Y/N]
【References】APA author-date, in-text=list [Y/N]
【Anonymized】identifying info off the main file [Y/N]
【Next】cps-transparency-and-data

Supplementary resources

• ../../resources/worked-examples/01-introduction.md — before→after CPS-style introduction
• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — CPS length, abstract, and style facts with sourcing