psychrev-contribution-framing

Contribution Framing (psychrev-contribution-framing)

When to trigger

• The theory is built, derived, and bounded; now you must say why it matters
• You can describe what your model is but not what is new about it
• A reviewer will ask "how is this an advance over [the standing model]?"
• The contribution reads as "we propose a model of X" with no before → after

The two questions every Review reviewer asks

1. What can the field explain after this paper that it could not before? Stated as a concrete before → after against a named prior model — not against "the literature."
2. Why could the prior models not get there? Identify the specific commitment or omission in the rival that your theory replaces or adds. "More accurate fit" is rarely enough; the advance should be a mechanism or unification, not a better-tuned curve.

Sizing the contribution (be honest about which you have)

Contribution type	What it claims	Strength at Review
New mechanism	A previously unexplained phenomenon now follows from a stated process	Strong
Unification	Phenomena treated by separate theories follow from one model	Strong
Adjudication	Settles a standing dispute between rival theories	Strong
Formalization	Makes a verbal theory precise and thereby newly predictive	Strong if it yields novel predictions
Generalization	Extends a model to a new domain it could not reach	Moderate — must be non-trivial
Re-parameterization	Same model, better fit	Weak — usually not a Review contribution
Relabeling	New name for an existing construct/mechanism	None — desk-reject signal

Differentiation discipline

• State the contribution as "before this paper, theory could not X; after it, theory can X," naming the prior model displaced or extended.
• Show the advance is not (a) a relabel, (b) a mere better fit, or (c) an accommodation of data the model was built on — each is a known reviewer objection at this journal.
• Tie the contribution to the diagnostic phenomena and novel predictions from psychrev-argument-development: the advance is credible only if the model gets the diagnostic cases right and risks a falsifiable new one.
• Where you formalize a verbal theory, the contribution is the new predictions the formalization yields, not the formalization itself.

Generality, the journal's premium

Review pays for generality. The strongest contribution framing shows the mechanism reaches beyond the originating paradigm — "the same mechanism predicts patterns in [adjacent domain]." Claim only the generality the derivations support (per psychrev-boundary-conditions); overclaimed generality is as damaging as undersized contribution.

Checklist

• Contribution stated as before → after against a named prior model
• The specific commitment/omission in the rival that the theory replaces is identified
• Contribution type is honestly sized (mechanism/unification/adjudication, not relabel/refit)
• Shown not to be a relabel, a better fit, or an accommodation
• Advance tied to diagnostic phenomena and at least one novel falsifiable prediction
• Generality claimed only to the extent the derivations and scope support

Anti-patterns

• "We propose a model of X" with no before → after and no named rival
• Claiming an advance that is a better fit of the same mechanism
• Relabeling an existing construct and presenting it as new theory
• Differentiating from "the literature" instead of a specific model
• Overclaiming generality the scope analysis does not support
• Letting the contribution rest on accommodated data rather than novel prediction

Output format

【Before → after】before this paper, theory could not [...]; after it, theory can [...]
【Named rival displaced/extended】[model] — the commitment/omission replaced: [...]
【Contribution type】mechanism | unification | adjudication | formalization | generalization
【Not a relabel/refit】evidence: tied to diagnostic phenomena + novel prediction [...]
【Generality】[reach beyond originating paradigm, within stated scope]
【Next step】psychrev-review-process (understand masked review) → psychrev-submission