From journal-of-applied-psychology-skills
Explains the Journal of Applied Psychology's masked peer review, action-editor model, dual gate of theory and rigor, and desk-reject patterns. Helps stress-test manuscripts before submission and interpret decision letters.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/journal-of-applied-psychology-skills:joap-review-processThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
JAP is selective and exacting. Reviewers and the action editor weigh **theoretical contribution** and
JAP is selective and exacting. Reviewers and the action editor weigh theoretical contribution and methodological rigor together — an interesting finding with weak measurement, and a flawless design with no theory advance, are both common rejections. Review is masked (anonymized). Knowing how the gate works lets you pre-empt the standard rejection reasons.
joap-submission).| Gate | What reviewers ask | Where to fix it |
|---|---|---|
| Theoretical contribution | Is there a new mechanism/boundary/integration? | joap-theory-and-hypotheses, joap-literature-positioning |
| Construct validity / measurement | Are the constructs validly measured? | joap-study-design |
| Causal / inferential warrant | Does the design support the claim (CMV, nesting)? | joap-study-design, joap-data-analysis |
| Analytic rigor | SEM fit, indirect-effect CIs, multilevel done right? | joap-data-analysis |
| Transparency | Data/materials/code shared under TOP? | joap-open-science-and-transparency |
The dual gate means many manuscripts never reach external review. Confirm current categories on the official page, but recognize these shapes:
| Pattern an editor sees | Likely outcome | Pre-empt it by |
|---|---|---|
| Rigorous study, no theoretical advance | desk reject | state the new mechanism/boundary/integration up front |
| Cross-sectional single-source self-report | desk reject (rigor) | add temporal/source separation or an experimental leg |
| Better fit for a sibling venue | desk reject (fit) | make the I-O micro/measurement contribution explicit |
| Mediation by Sobel/steps; OLS on nested data | thin-method flag | modern indirect-effect CIs; multilevel models |
| "Data available on request," no DOIs | returned for compliance | deposit with persistent IDs before submitting |
Manuscript: two-wave multilevel field study (612 in 74 teams) + lab experiment,
servant leadership → safety → performance, open data/materials/code,
experiment preregistered, indirect-effect CI reported.
Editor read: contribution (cross-level mechanism + boundary), rigor (temporal +
multilevel + experimental leg), transparency (TOP-aligned — strong).
Likely route: external review, probable major R&R (added robustness/alternative
models, sharper boundary theory).
Counter-case: same finding, one cross-sectional single-source survey, no prereg,
request-only data → likely desk reject.
【Theoretical contribution】clear + new? [Y/N]
【Construct validity / measurement】adequate? [Y/N]
【Causal / inferential warrant】CMV + nesting handled? [Y/N]
【Analytic rigor】SEM fit / indirect CIs / multilevel correct? [Y/N]
【Transparency】data/materials/code + preregistration strong? [Y/N]
【Realistic outcome】desk reject / R&R / accept
【Next】joap-submission (or joap-rebuttal if decided)
../../resources/official-source-map.md — masked review model, TOP weighting, action-editor processnpx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin journal-of-applied-psychology-skillsGuides understanding of the Journal of Educational Psychology's masked peer review and editorial criteria. Use for pre-submission stress-testing or interpreting decision letters.
Explains how JPSP sections judge manuscripts: masked review, innovation gate, central vs. peripheral limitations, and decision categories. Useful before submitting or interpreting a decision letter.
Explains Psychological Science's peer review criteria, editorial triage patterns, and Registered Reports pathway to help tailor manuscripts before submission and interpret decision letters.