cps-review-process

Review Process (cps-review-process)

Knowing how CPS evaluates a paper lets you preempt the objections before submitting. CPS uses anonymous peer review via SAGE Track (ScholarOne); the manuscript is screened by an editor first, then sent to reviewers if it clears desk evaluation. Comparativists review for comparative leverage, travel, and methodological soundness on the paper's own terms.

When to trigger

• Before submission, to stress-test the paper against likely reviewer objections
• Deciding whether the paper is ready or needs another design/analysis loop
• Interpreting a decision letter and what each decision category means
• Anticipating reviewer disagreement across subfields/methods

The two screens

1. Editorial / desk screen. An editor judges fit and quality before review. Common desk-reject grounds: not comparative / no comparative leverage; out of CPS scope; better suited to a general or IR journal; insufficient contribution; serious methodological or ethical problems; not ready in English/format. Make the comparative contribution unmissable on page one to clear this screen.
2. Anonymous peer review. Reviewers (typically comparativists matched to subfield and method) evaluate the contribution, design, and execution. Editors weigh reviews and decide.

What CPS reviewers reward and punish

Reviewers reward	Reviewers punish
Clear comparative leverage and a portable mechanism	Single-case study with no comparative claim
Design that rules out the leading rival	"Causal" language on a cross-national correlation
Cross-national measurement handled transparently	Cherry-picked codings; few-cluster SEs ignored
Engagement with the comparative literature beyond one region	Regional insularity; reinventing a known result
Replication-ready materials and a data availability statement	Opaque, un-reproducible analysis

Decision categories (verify current wording)

• Reject (incl. desk reject) — fit, contribution, or execution falls short.
• Revise & resubmit (R&R) — the path most accepted papers take; address reviewers and editor systematically (hand off to cps-rebuttal).
• Conditional acceptance / acceptance — for quantitative papers, final acceptance is gated on the CPS Dataverse deposit (see cps-transparency-and-data).

Exact decision labels, timelines, desk-reject rates, and number of reviewers are not fixed public figures — confirm on the SAGE author page; treat the above as the working model (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).

Pre-submission stress test

• Write the single strongest reviewer objection to your comparative claim and answer it in one paragraph + one exhibit. If you cannot, loop back to cps-research-design or cps-data-analysis.
• Check the paper against the comparative-fit checks in cps-workflow before you submit.

Checklist

• Comparative contribution is unmissable on page one (clears desk screen)
• Paper fits CPS scope, not APSR/AJPS/WP/IO/BJPS
• The leading rival is adjudicated, not asserted away
• Cross-national measurement and inference are defensible
• Replication materials + data availability statement are ready
• Strongest anticipated objection has a one-paragraph + one-exhibit answer

Anti-patterns

• Submitting before the comparative leverage is unmistakable (desk-reject risk)
• Ignoring that quant final acceptance is gated on the Dataverse deposit
• Assuming reviewers share your regional expertise — write for a cross-regional comparativist
• Treating R&R as acceptance — it is a contract to answer every point

Output format

【Desk-screen risk】comparative contribution clear on page one? [Y/N]
【Strongest objection】+ the one-paragraph + one-exhibit answer
【Inference/measurement】defensible for a comparative reviewer? [Y/N]
【Transparency ready】Dataverse package + data availability statement? [Y/N]
【Decision expected】reject / R&R / (conditional) accept
【Next】cps-submission (if ready) or back to design/analysis

Supplementary resources

• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — CPS review model and portal
• ../../resources/exemplars/library.md — what cleared review at CPS, by subfield × method