---
name: arpsych-editor-strategy
description: Use when managing scope, length, deadlines, and the production relationship with the Annual Review of Psychology (ARPsych) Editor and Annual Reviews production team. Handles the editorial/production process; it does not get the initial invitation (arpsych-proposal-and-commissioning) or run the final file preflight (arpsych-submission).
---

# Editor Strategy — Working the Production Relationship (arpsych-editor-strategy)

## When to trigger

- An invitation is accepted and you must manage scope, length, and milestones with the Editor
- The draft is drifting over the assigned length or past the due date
- The Editor or a Committee member has questions about scope or overlap with another review
- You need to understand the Annual Reviews production timeline before delivery

## Who you are working with (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准)

ARPsych is run by its **Editors** (Susan T. Fiske since 2000, co-editing with **Daniel L. Schacter** for the 2026 volume; web-verified 2026-06-22, re-verify before relying) plus an **Editorial Committee** of associate editors and rotating members, supported by **Annual Reviews production staff** (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). Unlike a normal journal, the editorial relationship begins at invitation and runs through commissioning, scope-setting, peer review, and production. The Editor cares about three things you can manage proactively: **scope fit within the volume**, **balance/accuracy** (see `arpsych-comprehensiveness-and-balance`), and **hitting length and deadline**.

## The levers you control

| Lever | How to manage it |
|-------|------------------|
| **Assigned length** | It is in the invitation and includes figures/tables; keep to it. If the topic truly needs more, negotiate *early*, not at delivery (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准) |
| **Due date** | Annual volumes are scheduled; a late review can slip a whole year. Calendar backward from the production deadline |
| **Scope boundary** | Confirm with the Editor what neighboring commissioned reviews cover, to avoid overlap or gaps |
| **Balance concerns** | If the topic is contested, signal early how you will cover rival camps even-handedly |
| **Figures/permissions** | Flag any reproduced exhibits needing permission well before the deadline |

## The production timeline (plan backward from it)

After delivery, the Annual Reviews process runs: **Committee/peer review for accuracy, rigor, and balance → revision → copyediting to house style → proofs → publication in the annual volume** (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). Implications:
- The delivered draft does **not** need to pre-conform to house reference style (production copyedits), but references must be **complete and accurate**.
- Build in time for **proof checking**, especially of figures Annual Reviews re-renders.
- ARPsych also offers early online publication ahead of the bound volume for many articles (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准) — confirm current practice on the author pages.

## Communicating with the Editor

- Raise scope/length/permission issues **early and in writing**; surprises at delivery are the friction point.
- If you discover the topic is bigger than the assigned length, propose a *narrowed* organizing question rather than asking to double the length.
- Keep the Editor informed if a co-author drops or a deadline is at risk — annual scheduling leaves little slack.

## Checklist

- [ ] Assigned length confirmed and the draft is tracking to it (figures/tables included)
- [ ] Due date calendared backward from the production deadline
- [ ] Scope boundary with neighboring commissioned reviews confirmed with the Editor
- [ ] Balance approach for any contested area signaled to the Editor early
- [ ] Reproduced-figure permissions flagged well ahead of delivery
- [ ] References complete and accurate (house style applied at production, not by you)
- [ ] Time reserved for peer-review revision and proof checking
- [ ] Early-online vs. volume publication practice re-checked on author pages

## Anti-patterns

- Going silent until delivery, then revealing the draft is 50% over length
- Treating the due date as soft — a slip can cost a full annual cycle
- Pre-formatting to house reference style instead of ensuring reference accuracy
- Discovering a permissions problem at the proof stage
- Asking to expand length late instead of narrowing the organizing question
- Ignoring scope overlap with a sibling commissioned review in the same volume

## Output format

```text
【Length】assigned limit + on-track? (figures/tables included) Y/N
【Deadline】due date calendared from production deadline? Y/N
【Scope boundary】overlap with neighboring reviews confirmed? Y/N
【Balance signal】contested-area plan shared with Editor? Y/N | N/A
【Permissions】reproduced-figure clearances flagged early? Y/N
【Timeline】peer-review + proof time reserved? Y/N
【Next step】→ arpsych-submission (final delivery preflight)
```