The DOI matches its Crossref record; 79 of the 79 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Seven deadly sins of contemporary quantitative political analysis
Open accessAbstract
A combination of technological change, methodological drift and a certain degree of intellectual sloth, particularly with respect to philosophy of science, has allowed contemporary quantitative political analysis to accumulate a series of dysfunctional habits that have rendered much of contemporary research more or less meaningless. I identify these ‘seven deadly sins’ as: Garbage can models that ignore the effects of collinearity; Pre-scientific explanation in the absence of prediction; Excessive reanalysis of a small number of datasets; Using complex methods without understanding the underlying assumptions; Interpreting frequentist statistics as if they were Bayesian; A linear statistical monoculture that fails to consider alternative structures; Confusing statistical controls and experimental controls. The answer to these problems is not to abandon quantitative approaches, but rather engage in solid, thoughtful, original work driven by an appreciation of both theory and data. The article closes with suggestions for changes in current practice that might serve to ameliorate some of these problems.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Kuhn, T. S., & Schlegel, R. (1963) · Physics Today · doi:10.1063/1.3050879 · Cited by 35,538
Book Review: Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning
Nasrabadi, N. M. (2007) · Journal of Electronic Imaging · doi:10.1117/1.2819119 · Cited by 22,066
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: 50th Anniversary Edition
Kuhn, T. S., & Hacking, I. (2012) · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226458144.001.0001 · Cited by 21,170
(2011) · Cited by 14,317
Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning
(2007) · Kybernetes · doi:10.1108/03684920710743466 · Cited by 8,265
Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research
King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994) · Princeton University Press · doi:10.1515/9781400821211 · Cited by 7,225
Hainmueller, J. (2012) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mpr025 · Cited by 6,026
Chiang, L. H., Russell, E. L., & Braatz, R. D. (2001) · Advanced Textbooks in Control and Signal Processing · doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-0347-9_3 · Cited by 5,003
Hoeting, J. A., Madigan, D., Raftery, A. E., & Volinsky, C. T. (1999) · Statistical Science · doi:10.1214/ss/1009212519 · Cited by 4,118 · cited 1×
“Bayesian approaches are common in the consistently top-ranked – by impact factor – Political Analysis (for example Hoeting et al., 1999; Lock & Gelman, 2010; Montgomery & Nyhan, 2010; Alvarez, Bailey & Katz, 2011; Grimmer, 2011; Montgomery, Hollenbach & Ward, 2012) but not in more massmarket venues…”
BackgroundCausal Inference without Balance Checking: Coarsened Exact Matching
Iacus, S. M., King, G., & Porro, G. (2012) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mpr013 · Cited by 3,563
Cited by
Integrating explanation and prediction in computational social science
Hofman, J. M., Watts, D. J., Athey, S., Garip, F., Griffiths, T. L., Kleinberg, J., Margetts, H., Mullainathan, S., Salganik, M. J., Vazire, S., et al. (2021) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03659-0 · Cited by 371
Why Partisans Do Not Sort: The Constraints on Political Segregation
Mummolo, J., & Nall, C. (2017) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.1086/687569 · Cited by 269
Common Sense and Sociological Explanations
Watts, D. J. (2014) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/678271 · Cited by 176
Colaresi, M., & Mahmood, Z. (2017) · Journal of Peace Research · doi:10.1177/0022343316682065 · Cited by 82
Metadata
- Authors
- Schrodt, P. A.
- Venue
- Journal of Peace Research
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2013-10-11
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 287-300
- ISSN
- 0022-3433 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-3578
- OpenAlex
- W2117564857
- Cited by
- 264
- References
- 79
- FWCI
- 129.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Seven deadly sins of contemporary quantitative political analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0022343313499597
- The paper
- Schrodt, P. A. (2014). Seven deadly sins of contemporary quantitative political analysis. Journal of Peace Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343313499597
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
