It is difficult to publish comparable political studies research. Good ideas may end up being rejected simply due to a methodology factor, and not the topic of research. Top journal editors are confronted with problematic designs on a day-to-day basis and turn away papers whose comparisons are weak or whose data is mismanaged. Political Studies research has its backbone in methodology; any weak ground will spearhead into rejection. Mars Publications is concerned with assisting researchers to get this underway.
The Riskiness of Comparative Studies
It is complicated to compare countries or political systems. This is aware of the knowledge of editors who seek errors in the organisation of a comparison. Mistakes as simple as they are may ruin the credibility of a paper.
Three major risks exist
- Differences in context: every country is unique in terms of history and culture. Direct comparison is tricky.
- Information issues: countries gather information in various ways, and it is not easily matched across national borders.
- Differences in systems: political institutions operate differently across all places, and, therefore, it is a mistake to presume similarity.
The more the comparisons, the more complex. Journals are more rigorous in the method of analysis they expect.
Mistake of Death: Unprofessional Choice of Cases
The first major decision to make is the choice of countries to compare. That will be a flunky-dunky of a paper. Reviewers instantaneously test your rationality.
Frequent error in case-selection:
- Convenience options: choose countries based on the language that you speak or the countries that you have been to.
- Lack of justification: failing to state why you have picked such cases.
- Apples to oranges: making comparisons that have no real value.
- Disregarding options: failure to state the reason why you disregarded obvious cases.
You need to explain clearly in your paper why these cases are? In the absence of a powerful reply, go unaccepted.
Changeable Issues That Murder Books
You learn about concepts such as democracy or corruption. How do you measure them? Weak measurement invalidates your analysis.
The following types of errors in the review papers are rejected:
- Broad definitions: no clear definition of the concept.
- Wrong measures: bad signifiers of complicated concepts.
- Inconsistent application: the measurement of the same thing in Country A and Country B.
- Concept stretching: The application of Western measures in non-Western situations without modification.
To take an example, voter turnout is used to measure political participation, overlooking protests, which is a deadly flaw in Political Studies work.
Disregard of Context: The Comparison Killer
Politics cannot exist in a vacuum. Institutional paths, culture, and history are relevant. The greatest mistake is possibly to overlook context.
Signs of context blindness:
- Trying to make the institutions the same: thinking the UK and Malaysian parliaments operate on equal footing.
- Memory loss: not learning about the impact of the elite colonialism on present politics.
- Outcomes of misreading: the belief that the outcome of the elections has the same meaning all over.
- Universal assumptions: the transfer of theories within one region of the world, and not testing.
A good comparative paper demonstrates great familiarity with each case, not merely a side-by-side figure.
Data Comparability Issues
The failure of data problems drowns most papers. Numbers could appear similar yet they are not. Experts spot these quickly.
The errors of critical data consist of:
- Mixed sources: combining data from various organizations approaching it differently.
- Time differences: considering 2010 statistics in one nation and 2020 statistics in another.
- Lapses in definitions: referring to unemployment when it is not defined in the same way in different countries.
- Scale issues: comparison of the national survey data to the regional data.
- Always test: Do you measure the same thing, in the same way, at the same time? If not, your comparison fails.
The Transparency Problem
Transparency is appreciated in modern political science. Describe how the work is carried out. Without understanding your process, you will not pass the paper by the reviewers.
Rejection due to failures in transparency:
- Oversight techniques: the lack of description of the data collection and analysis.
- Omission of steps: omitting significant elements of the research procedure.
- No restrictions: omission of discussing weaknesses.
- Irreducible work: failing to describe your work in adequate detail so that other people can replicate it.
Data would frequently be needed in journals. They desire sections on methods that can be followed. Opaque procedures are indicative of poor research tactics.
The way Mars Publications Solves These Issues
The problems of methodology are complicated. Their repair takes the work of an expert. Mars Publications are the specialists in political studies research. We make sure that authors do not make fatal mistakes.
The review of methodology we offer involves:
- Selection audit Case: Evaluate the sense of your comparison and reinforce your judgment.
- Review measurement: review variables and indicators, propose more appropriate measures based on necessity.
- Context analysis: do not forget about historical and cultural factors.
- Check data quality: search for comparability problems in your data.
- Transparency check: ensure that your approach is coherent and full.
Before you can face rejection, we work. We are concentrating on the difficult aspects of comparative research, and our editors know what political science needs.
E.g. we assisted an author with the comparison of education policies. The initial case sampling was unidentified. We assisted them in coming up with a theoretical framework which justified their country choices.
A Basic Pre-Submission Checklist
Before the submission of your comparative paper, inquire about:
- Case selection: What justification can I provide that I selected these particular cases?
- Variables: Can my measures apply to every case under consideration?
- Context: Have I touched on major historical and institutional disparities?
- Data: Are these things of the same kind being measured in the same way?
- Transparency: Can my research be reproduced by another researcher based on my description?
Should you say no to any of the questions, rewrite your paper. It is as a result of these problems that most rejections occur.
Conclusion
It is difficult to do comparative political studies. The methodology defines failure or success. Journals turn away papers due to poor case choices, weak measurements, neglected context, unsound data, or obscure procedures. Also, these problems are fixable. One has to think it through and, in many cases, seek the input of a professional to address them.
Mars Publications offer this knowledge. Moreover, we assist in empowering your research work in Political Studies. We are making sure that your comparisons are acceptable, that your measures are good, and that your methods are clear.