From perspectives-on-psychological-science-skills
Shapes proposals for Perspectives on Psychological Science (PoPS) contributions by explaining proposal routes, content, and differences for invited/special-issue work.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/perspectives-on-psychological-science-skills:ppsych-proposal-and-commissioningThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
- The topic passed `ppsych-topic-selection` and you are deciding whether to send a proposal first
ppsych-topic-selection and you are deciding whether to send a proposal firstPoPS mixes submitted and invited/cooperative work, and the proposal rules differ by category — get this right or you waste effort:
The controllable move for a stand-alone piece is a short proposal that reads like the editor's own reasoning: here is a question the whole field needs reframed, here is the synthesis or argument I will impose, here is why it is provocative and timely, and here is why I can do it fairly. For cooperative work, the proposal must also show the coordination plan (contributors, balance of viewpoints, timeline).
| Element | What it must do | Note |
|---|---|---|
| The claim & animating question | State the superordinate message (from ppsych-topic-selection) | the argument, not a topic label |
| Why a synthesis/argument is needed now | New evidence / method shift / reform debate; the cross-area payoff | concrete, not "under-reviewed" |
| The organizing spine | The framework or taxonomy you will impose — not a section list | the contribution lives here |
| Coverage signal | The main research lines / sub-areas you will integrate | breadth evidence |
| Provisional take-home | Your read of what the field should conclude + the open agenda | the payoff |
| Standing & balance | Why you can write it fairly, and how you handle your own work | 2–3 sentences |
| (Cooperative only) Coordination plan | Contributors, viewpoint balance, special-issue/collaboration timeline | required for special issues |
PoPS has been a home for adversarial collaborations (rival camps designing a fair test together) and themed special issues. These are cooperative contributions: the proposal must name the parties, the disputed question, the agreed evidentiary standard, and the plan for an even-handed write-up. The editor approves the structure; the resulting manuscript is still refereed.
【Category】stand-alone / cooperative / miscellaneous
【Proposal required?】Y/N (cooperative + miscellaneous = required)
【Claim & question】<one sentence superordinate message>
【Why now】<new evidence / method shift / reform debate>
【Proposed spine】<the organizing framework in 2–3 sentences>
【Coverage signal】<sub-areas / research lines to integrate>
【Provisional take-home + agenda】<what the piece will argue>
【Coordination plan】(cooperative only) contributors / balance / timeline
【Balance note】<how the author's own work is handled>
【Source status】proposal process re-confirmed on PoPS page? Y/N · 待核实
【Next step】→ ppsych-literature-synthesis (begin systematic cross-area reading)
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin perspectives-on-psychological-science-skillsNavigates proposal and commissioning for the Annual Review of Psychology, including suggesting topics/authors and shaping invitation scope.
Evaluates whether a research question fits Perspectives on Psychological Science (PoPS) — broad, integrative, theoretical, or meta-scientific — and routes it to the correct venue.
Guides crafting short article proposals and symposium pitches for the Journal of Economic Perspectives (JEP), covering structure, balance, and accessibility to approach editors.