Writing Style (bjps-writing-style)
A BJPS paper must be readable by a political scientist outside its subfield and outside its country of
study, formatted to Cambridge's house style (Harvard author-date referencing), and disciplined to
the word cap. This skill is about reaching a broad, international readership and respecting the format
— not about generating claims.
When to trigger
- Drafting the introduction, framing the contribution, or final polish
- Over the word cap and needing to cut without losing the argument
- Writing the ≤ 150-word abstract
- Aligning citations/headings/format to Cambridge's house style before submission
Reach the broad, international reader
-
Front-load the contribution. By the end of the introduction the reader knows the question, the
argument, the evidence, and why it matters to political science broadly. Don't make a generalist
dig for the "so what."
-
Don't assume the country context. A reader unfamiliar with your case should follow the paper;
gloss country-specific institutions and acronyms on first use.
-
Minimize subfield jargon or define it on first use; an IR reader should follow a behaviour paper.
-
Argument-first prose. Lead with claims; use evidence to support them. Avoid "the data show…"
without saying what they show and why it matters.
-
Signpost. Clear section structure so a reader can navigate the argument.
Format to Cambridge house style
-
Citations: Harvard author-date in text (e.g.,
(Elster 1983, 174)); reference list with the
Cambridge format (Elster J (1983) Explaining Technical Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.).
Keep one consistent style (manage with Zotero/BibTeX). References excluded from the word count.
-
Manuscript prep: double spacing, ≥ 12-point type, generous margins; accepted in MS Word or
LaTeX (待核实 current specifics).
-
Anonymize: BJPS is double-blind — no author names/affiliations/acknowledgments or funding
notes in the manuscript, no obvious self-references ("as we showed in…"), strip identifying file
metadata, and prepare a separate title page.
-
Abstract: ≤ 150 words, stating question, approach, and finding.
Fit the word cap (Research Article ~10,000; Letter ~4,000; caps 待核实)
- Move balance tables, full specs, and extended robustness to the online appendix.
- Cut throat-clearing and literature dumps; engage the debate, not every paper (see
bjps-literature-positioning).
- Tighten footnotes — keep them substantive.
- Prefer one decisive figure to three redundant tables.
Anti-patterns
- A subfield- or country-insider intro that never states wide significance
- Burying the contribution in the middle of the paper
- An abstract over 150 words or one that hides the finding
- Mixed citation styles; acknowledgments or self-references that break anonymity
- Padding a Letter toward Article length
Output format
【Contribution stated by end of intro?】[Y/N]
【Reads past subfield + country?】jargon/institutions glossed? [Y/N]
【Abstract】word count (≤150)
【Word count】Article ~10,000 / Letter ~4,000?
【Harvard author-date + anonymized】[Y/N]
【Next】bjps-transparency-and-data
Writing for two readers at once (BJPS-specific)
Every paragraph in the introduction has two readers: the specialist who knows the frontier, and the
generalist from another subfield or country who must be told why it matters. Satisfy both — name the
frontier and the broad stake. A common failure is writing only for the specialist (the paper reads as
parochial) or only for the generalist (the paper reads as thin). The fix is the wide-interest sentence
early, followed by the precise contribution against the literature.
Calibration anchors (hedged)
- BJPS is international: do not assume the reader knows your country's institutions, parties, or
acronyms — gloss them on first use without padding the word count.
- House style is Harvard author-date, not APSA or Chicago-generic; keep one consistent style, and
remember references are excluded from the word count while footnotes and exhibits are not (待核实 exact
counting rule on the live page).
Supplementary resources
