psychrev-workflow

Psychological Review Theory Workflow (psychrev-workflow)

Overview

This is the router. It does not replace any specialized skill — it tells you which psychrev- skill to use at the current stage* of a Psychological Review manuscript.

Default assumption: unless the user says otherwise, treat the target as Psychological Review — the American Psychological Association's flagship for theoretical contributions in scientific psychology. Per its scope it "publishes articles that make important theoretical contributions to any area of scientific psychology, including systematic evaluation of alternative theories"; papers "mainly focused on surveys of the literature, problems of method and design, or reports of empirical findings are not appropriate" (apa.org/pubs/journals/rev, 检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). The deliverable is a new theory or formal/computational model, or a major theoretical synthesis — built with explicit assumptions, derived predictions, and stated scope. There is no primary empirical report: data appear only to motivate or constrain the theory, never as the contribution. If the empirical work is the point, route to a JEP-family journal, Psychological Science, or a specialty venue — not Psychological Review.

Two register choices run through every stage. First, this is theory, so logical and formal soundness plays the role statistics play at empirical journals. Second, this is APA, so the prose is plain, precise, and mechanism-first; the vocabulary is model, assumption, prediction, parameter, scope — not "study," "we found," "p < .05."

When to trigger

• The user asks "what should I do next?" on a theory or modeling paper
• A draft arrives and you must locate its bottleneck (problem? model? derivations?)
• Work is thrashing between modeling, figure-building, and writing
• A Psychological Review decision letter has arrived and the work shifts to revision

Routing table

Current symptom	Next skill
Idea is vague; unsure there is a real theoretical problem (or it is empirical)	psychrev-topic-selection
Have a problem but the model's assumptions/mechanisms are not built	psychrev-theory-construction
Unsure which theories you extend or which rivals you must beat	psychrev-literature-positioning
Model exists but predictions are not derived or confronted with data	psychrev-argument-development
Theory over-claims; scope, identifiability, and limits are unstated	psychrev-boundary-conditions
Model diagram or simulation-of-behavior figure is missing/unreadable	psychrev-conceptual-exhibits
Cannot articulate the advance over the prior model	psychrev-contribution-framing
Prose reads like a literature review, not a theoretical argument	psychrev-writing-style
Ready to submit; need the Editorial Manager preflight	psychrev-submission
Want to understand masked review and Theoretical Notes	psychrev-review-process
Received a revise decision; need the response document	psychrev-rebuttal

Default order

1. psychrev-topic-selection — lock the theoretical problem and confirm it is not empirical
2. psychrev-literature-positioning — name the theories you extend and the rivals you must beat
3. psychrev-theory-construction — build assumptions, mechanisms, formal structure, derivations
4. psychrev-argument-development — derive predictions; confront existing data and rival models
5. psychrev-boundary-conditions — state scope, identifiability, and what the theory does NOT explain
6. psychrev-conceptual-exhibits — model diagrams + simulation-of-model-behavior figures
7. psychrev-contribution-framing — differentiate the advance over prior models
8. psychrev-writing-style — APA house style; mechanism-first prose (polish)
9. psychrev-submission — Editorial Manager preflight (incl. author's own model code if computational)
10. psychrev-review-process — understand masked review and the decision types
11. psychrev-rebuttal — after a revise-and-resubmit

psychrev-writing-style is a late-stage polish. Do not polish prose before the derivations stand up (psychrev-argument-development) and the contribution is differentiated (psychrev-contribution-framing).

Decision shortcuts

• "I have a striking phenomenon but no model" → psychrev-topic-selection
• "I don't know which existing model I'm beating" → psychrev-literature-positioning
• "My model has assumptions but no derived predictions" → psychrev-argument-development
• "A reviewer will ask whether the model is identifiable" → psychrev-boundary-conditions
• "Reviewers will ask 'how is this better than [prior model]?'" → psychrev-contribution-framing
• "My figures are boxes, no simulated behavior" → psychrev-conceptual-exhibits
• "It reads like a review essay" → psychrev-writing-style
• "I'm about to hit submit" → psychrev-submission
• "I got a major revision" → psychrev-review-process then psychrev-rebuttal

Differences vs. sibling journals

• Psychological Bulletin: integrative reviews and meta-analyses — synthesizes evidence; does not advance a new formal theory. If your contribution is "the field, summarized," it is Bulletin, not Review.
• Behavioral and Brain Sciences (BBS): a target article + open peer commentary format for cross-disciplinary debate; not the APA single-author/team theory paper.
• Trends in Cognitive Sciences: short, invited opinion/review pieces; not original formal theory.
• JEP family / Psychological Science: empirical reports — where data is the contribution.

Anti-patterns

• Do not skip psychrev-literature-positioning — reviewers first ask which model you beat.
• Do not let psychrev-conceptual-exhibits render a model before its behavior is derived.
• Do not let psychrev-rebuttal draft a response before the theory itself was revised.
• Do not treat Psychological Review as a venue for empirical reports; route data papers elsewhere.

Volatile specifics (editor, exact length/abstract limits, portal URL, fees, APA edition, acceptance rate) change or could not be machine-verified — see resources/official-source-map.md and confirm on the official APA Psychological Review page.