From cognitive-psychology-skills
Positions a Cognitive Psychology manuscript against rival models and prior empirical programs by framing the theoretical question and showing why existing evidence cannot settle it.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/cognitive-psychology-skills:cogpsych-literature-positioningThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Cognitive Psychology gives you room for a substantial introduction — but length is a trap if it becomes
Cognitive Psychology gives you room for a substantial introduction — but length is a trap if it becomes a catalogue. Positioning here is about the theoretical contrast class: which models or accounts you adjudicate, what they predict, and why the existing evidence cannot settle the question your program settles. Position against rival models and prior programs, not against a long chronology.
| Candidate citation role | Keep? | Why it earns a slot in Cognitive Psychology |
|---|---|---|
| Defines a rival account you adjudicate | always | the contrast class; without it the fork is invisible |
| Closest prior program you beat/extend | always | this is the contribution's benchmark |
| Establishes the discriminating signature | usually | reviewers check the prediction is real |
| Model/method provenance | usually | construct and modeling validity are scrutinized |
| Background-completeness citation | cut first | length is not an excuse for a catalogue |
A recognition-memory program positions against the dual-process tradition. Weak framing: "Recognition memory has been studied for decades (refs 1-40)." Venue-fit framing:
Question: Does recognition rest on one continuous strength signal or on a
distinct threshold recollection process?
Rivals: UVSD (single continuous signal) vs. DPSD (familiarity + threshold
recollection); they predict different z-ROC shapes.
Why unsettled: most prior tests fit one model only, or use designs where the
z-ROC shape is not diagnostic, so the fork persists.
Contribution (stated in the Introduction):
Three experiments engineered to make the z-ROC shape diagnostic,
with both models fit and compared, adjudicate the debate.
Breadth: the answer constrains models of memory used across cognitive aging,
eyewitness, and decision research.
| Reviewer pushback | Cognitive Psychology fix |
|---|---|
| "Contribution is incremental" | name the theoretical fork you close, not a longer literature tour |
| "Already shown by model X" | state what X cannot account for and how your design discriminates it |
| "Reads as a catalogue" | reorganize the Introduction around the rival accounts and the discriminating prediction |
| "First to show" overclaim | downgrade to "first to adjudicate X vs. Y under a diagnostic design"; cite priors honestly |
【Theoretical question】the live debate between accounts
【Rival accounts】what each predicts
【Why unsettled】how prior evidence fails to discriminate them
【Contribution】adjudication / formalization / boundary / new model — stated early?
【Anchor citations】the works that define the rivals + closest priors
【Breadth】who across cognition inherits the answer
【Next】cogpsych-study-design
../../resources/official-source-map.md — scope, article length, and house stylenpx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin cognitive-psychology-skillsPositions a Psychological Review manuscript within its theoretical conversation by naming rival models and diagnostic phenomena. Use when reviewers will ask "how is this different from X?"
Positions Psychological Science manuscripts against the literature with sharp gap/contribution framing and ~40 reference budgets. Handles reviewer feedback about incremental contributions.
Pressure-tests whether a cognition project fits Cognitive Psychology (Elsevier) by evaluating theoretical advance, integrative scope, formal modeling, and reproducibility. Guides contribution shape and fit scoring.