From cognitive-psychology-skills
Explains Cognitive Psychology's review process: editorial triage for theoretical impact, expert scrutiny of model rigor, recovery, design, and reproducibility. Helps stress-test papers before submission and interpret decision letters.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/cognitive-psychology-skills:cogpsych-review-processThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Cognitive Psychology combines selectivity for **theoretical impact** with deep **methodological and
Cognitive Psychology combines selectivity for theoretical impact with deep methodological and modeling scrutiny. Reviewers and editors weigh not only whether the finding is interesting, but whether the model is well-specified, identifiable, and properly compared, whether the experiments discriminate the accounts, and whether the work is reproducible. Knowing this lets you pre-empt the common rejection reasons. Confirm the current process on the official page (检索于 2026-06;以官网为准).
cogpsych-open-science-and-transparency).Verify the review model (single- vs. double-anonymized), referee count, and timelines on the journal's current guide for authors — these are volatile (检索于 2026-06;以官网为准).
The long-form, model-driven identity means many submissions never reach external review. Recognize these shapes and pre-empt them:
| Pattern an editor sees | Likely outcome | Pre-empt it by |
|---|---|---|
| One experiment, one effect, no model/theory | desk reject (wrong shape) | grow into a model-driven program or place in a short-report venue |
| Model fit but never compared to a rival | major revision or reject | fit rivals under matched flexibility; report criteria |
| Experiments don't discriminate the accounts | reject (non-diagnostic) | redesign for the discriminating signature |
| Aggregated analyses, ignored subject/item variance | methods flag | refit with mixed/hierarchical models |
| Fits not reproducible; no code | reproducibility flag | deposit seeded model code with a run log |
| Better-fitting but more flexible model claimed as winner | overfitting flag | add recovery + penalized comparison/cross-validation |
Manuscript: three preregistered recognition-memory experiments; UVSD vs.
DPSD fit and compared (hierarchical Bayesian), recovery reported,
open data + model code with DOIs, diagnostic z-ROC signature.
Editor read: theoretical impact (adjudicates a long-running debate), modeling
rigor (comparison + recovery), reproducibility (code regenerates).
Likely route: external review, probable major revision for added robustness
(alternative priors, a further model, more recovery).
Counter-case: same effect, one experiment, one model fit, request-only data,
no recovery → likely declined without full review.
【Theoretical advance】clear early? [Y/N]
【Discrimination】do experiments separate the models? [Y/N]
【Modeling rigor】comparison + recovery + matched flexibility? [Y/N]
【Hierarchy + reporting】mixed/hierarchical + effect sizes/intervals? [Y/N]
【Reproducible】model code regenerates fits? [Y/N]
【Realistic outcome】reject / major revision / minor revision / accept
【Next】cogpsych-submission (or cogpsych-rebuttal if decided)
../../resources/official-source-map.md — review model, scope, and reproducibility expectationsnpx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin cognitive-psychology-skillsPressure-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.
Explains Psychological Review's review process: masked peer review, article types (full article vs. Theoretical Note), and what theory-journal reviewers probe. Does not write rebuttals or run submission checks.
Explains Psychological Science's peer review criteria, editorial triage patterns, and Registered Reports pathway to help tailor manuscripts before submission and interpret decision letters.