Submission Preflight (poq-submission)
The last check before pressing submit on ScholarOne Manuscripts. POQ is double-blind, so the
single most common avoidable failure is an under-anonymized manuscript — and the second is a missing or
incomplete Appendix A: Disclosure Elements. Verify volatile specifics on the official page before
relying on them.
When to trigger
- "Submitting tomorrow" — last pass before upload
- Unsure which files/metadata ScholarOne expects
- Confirming the type's word cap is met and the manuscript is properly anonymized and disclosed
Process facts (verify volatile items on the official page)
-
Publisher / affiliate: Oxford University Press / American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR).
-
Portal: ScholarOne Manuscripts (
mc.manuscriptcentral.com/poq).
-
Review model: double-blind — anonymize the manuscript; provide a separate title page.
-
Submission types & caps (text + notes; exclude figures, tables, references, appendices):
Original Article ≤ 6,500; Research Note < 3,000; Polls in Context ≤ 2,500; Research
Synthesis ≤ 6,500 (incl. notes); Book Review ~1,200.
-
AAPOR disclosure: Appendix A: Disclosure Elements for all data reported (funding, exact
wording, population, sample design, mode + dates, response rate per AAPOR definitions, sample sizes +
precision, clustering/weighting design effects).
-
Data policy: replication package to POQ's Harvard Dataverse; Data Availability Statement
in the endmatter; materials archived before typesetting.
-
Fee: no submission fee stated (consistent as of 2026-06-22); any open-access APC handled by OUP
after acceptance — re-verify current charges on the OUP page before submission (待核实).
Preflight checklist
Type & length
AAPOR disclosure (the POQ-specific gate)
Anonymity (double-blind)
Data & files
How the editorial office reads your upload
Think of the ScholarOne package as being screened in this order, and stage files so each check
passes on the first look:
-
Anonymity sweep — the anonymized main document is opened first. A name in the running
header, an "as we showed (Author 2023)" self-citation, or author initials in tracked-changes
metadata sends the package back before any editor reads the abstract. Export a fresh PDF/DOCX
and check File → Properties, not just the visible text.
-
Type-and-cap check — the declared submission type is compared against the word count you
enter. Count text + notes yourself before upload; an Article-length manuscript declared as a
Research Note is returned, not silently retyped.
-
Disclosure scan — the office looks for Appendix A by name. Label it exactly "Appendix A:
Disclosure Elements," one block per dataset, response-rate formula named (e.g., AAPOR RR3), so a
screener can verify completeness without reading the methods section.
-
Endmatter — Data Availability Statement present, Dataverse plan stated, IRB noted. Missing
endmatter is the most common cause of a revise-before-review email.
A package that survives all four screens goes to the editor with no round-trip — often saving two
weeks of calendar time before first decision.
Anti-patterns
- Leaving author identifiers in the text, acknowledgments, or file metadata (breaks double-blind)
- A missing or incomplete Appendix A; a response rate with no AAPOR definition
- Sending a long paper to the Research Note or Polls in Context track
- Counting figures/tables against the cap (they are excluded) while ignoring footnotes (they count)
- Budgeting for a submission fee that is not charged (verify)
Output format
【Type】Article / Note / Polls in Context / Synthesis / Book Review (cap met? Y/N)
【Appendix A】complete + AAPOR response rate calculation? [Y/N]
【Anonymized】text + self-refs + file metadata clean? [Y/N]
【Word count】within cap (text + notes)?
【Repro package + DAS】staged for POQ Dataverse + DAS drafted? [Y/N]
【Next】await decision → poq-rebuttal on R&R
Supplementary resources
