From psci-skills
Explains Psychological Science's peer review criteria, editorial triage patterns, and Registered Reports pathway to help tailor manuscripts before submission and interpret decision letters.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/psci-skills:psci-review-processThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Psychological Science combines high-impact selectivity with strong credibility checks. Reviewers and
Psychological Science combines high-impact selectivity with strong credibility checks. Reviewers and editors weigh not only whether the finding is interesting, but whether it is robust, adequately powered, and transparent. Knowing this lets you pre-empt the common rejection reasons.
psci-submission).The tight format and credibility screen mean many manuscripts never reach external review. Confirm current categories and limits against the journal's submission guidelines, but recognize these shapes:
| Pattern an editor sees | Likely outcome | Pre-empt it by |
|---|---|---|
| Surprising effect, single small study, no preregistration | declined or RR suggestion | add internal replication; preregister; report power |
| Narrow-paradigm result, no broad-relevance argument | desk reject (fit) | state who outside the subarea inherits the claim |
| "Data available on request," no DOIs | returned for compliance | deposit with persistent IDs before submitting |
| Over the word format, exhibits dumped at the end | returned to author | design to the format; embed exhibits |
| p-values and stars, no effect sizes/CIs | thin-evidence flag | estimation-first reporting |
Manuscript: two preregistered attention studies (N = 240; N = 300),
open data + materials with DOIs, effect sizes + CIs.
Editor read: impact (load-bearing premise), breadth (clinical inheritance),
robustness (internal replication), transparency (graded — strong).
Likely route: external review, probable R&R for added robustness/disclosure.
Counter-case: same finding, one N = 45 study, no prereg, request-only data
→ likely declined without full review.
【Impact + breadth】clear early? [Y/N]
【Robustness + power】adequate? [Y/N]
【Transparency】data/materials + statement + preregistration strong? [Y/N]
【Confirmatory vs exploratory】honest? [Y/N]
【Route】Research Article vs Registered Report
【Realistic outcome】reject / R&R / accept
【Next】psci-submission (or psci-rebuttal if decided)
../../resources/official-source-map.md — review model, transparency weighting, Registered Reportsnpx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin psci-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 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.
Pressure-tests whether an empirical psychology project fits Psychological Science and selects the right manuscript type (Research Article, Registered Report, Commentary).