Good China paper may be published in CP, but not in CPS. China papers in CPS in the last few years are typically substantively flimsy, or not about anything politically important, but get published because they seem to have some quasi identification strategies that the editors (who don't know what's really happening in China) like.
Or, the good China papers are actually published in CP or CPS, if not APSR.
China papers in CPS in the last few years are typically substantively flimsy, or not about anything politically important, but get published because they seem to have some quasi identification strategies that the editors.
Or, the good China papers are actually published in CP or CPS, if not APSR.
China papers in CPS in the last few years are typically substantively flimsy, or not about anything politically important, but get published because they seem to have some quasi identification strategies...
True, except that it's almost all papers published in CPS, not just China papers. It's depressing that one of the most highly regarded subfield journals runs like a number-crunching factory. It serves to keep the army of academic blue-collar happy, and thereby winning their support.
Note: this isn't quant-bashing. There are quant pieces with both substantive insights and sophisticated identification strategy. Just not the majority of CPS articles.