From psychbull-skills
Tests whether a research question fits Psychological Bulletin and selects the appropriate synthesis type (meta-analysis, systematic review, meta-review, qualitative review).
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/psychbull-skills:psychbull-topic-selectionThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Psychological Bulletin publishes **syntheses of research in scientific psychology**, not original
Psychological Bulletin publishes syntheses of research in scientific psychology, not original studies. The first question is therefore not "is my result interesting?" but "is there a body of existing studies worth synthesizing, and what synthesis does it support?" This skill tests fit and chooses the synthesis type; it does not draft content.
| If the literature… | Choose |
|---|---|
| Has many studies reporting extractable, comparable effect sizes | Meta-analysis |
| Is large but heterogeneous / not cleanly poolable, yet needs systematic appraisal | Systematic review (PRISMA) |
| Consists largely of prior reviews or meta-analyses | Meta-review / meta-synthesis |
| Is qualitative or too varied to pool but worth integrating | Qualitative / narrative review |
At the APA's flagship review journal, the most common early death is a topic that is not actually a research synthesis, or one with too little to synthesize. The fit bar reviewers apply:
| Fit dimension | Review-worthy at this venue | Off-fit / desk-reject trigger |
|---|---|---|
| Object | Integrates existing studies | Reports new data (→ empirical journal) |
| Theory vs. synthesis | Theory grounded in synthesized evidence | Pure new theory (→ Psychological Review) |
| Literature size | Enough comparable studies to recover and pool | A handful of papers — a narrative essay |
| General significance | Resolves a discipline-wide debate | Narrow, of interest to one lab |
Illustrative figures only. "Does self-affirmation improve academic outcomes?" is screened under this skill's rules:
【Fit】synthesis of existing work? [Y/N — if N, which journal]
【Synthesis type】meta-analysis / systematic / meta-review / qualitative
【Question】structured (population / predictor / outcome)
【Why now】adds beyond prior reviews? [reason]
【Feasibility】rough study count from scoping search
【Next】psychbull-literature-search-strategy
../../resources/external_tools.md — scoping-search databases and reporting standards../../resources/official-source-map.md — Psychological Bulletin scope (syntheses, not primary studies)npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin psychbull-skillsEvaluates whether a psychology topic is mature, important, and synthesis-ready for an Annual Review of Psychology (ARPsych) review. Tests topic fit via three gates: maturity, importance, synthesis-readiness.
Routes Psychological Bulletin manuscript projects to the correct sub-skill based on synthesis type (meta-analysis, systematic review, meta-review, qualitative review) and lifecycle stage.
Guides researchers in deciding whether a topic warrants an RER review by testing fit, maturity, need, and scope.