---
name: arpsych-topic-selection
description: Use when judging whether a psychology topic is mature, important, and synthesis-ready enough to warrant an Annual Review of Psychology (ARPsych) review. Tests topic fit; it does not pitch the topic to the Committee (arpsych-proposal-and-commissioning) or gather the literature (arpsych-literature-synthesis).
---

# Topic Selection — Is This an ARPsych Topic? (arpsych-topic-selection)

## When to trigger

- A user wants to write "a review" and needs to know whether ARPsych is the right home
- An invitation is possible but the angle on the topic is undecided
- The candidate topic feels either too narrow (one lab's program) or too vast (all of memory)
- You must distinguish an ARPsych-scale survey from a *Psychological Bulletin* meta-analysis

## The three gates a topic must pass

ARPsych commissions reviews that the **whole field** will read for a decade. A topic earns a slot only if it clears all three:

| Gate | Question | Fails when |
|------|----------|-----------|
| **Maturity** | Is there enough accumulated, settled-enough work to synthesize? | The area is 3 papers old and moving weekly — premature; the review would date in a year |
| **Importance** | Will cognitive/social/developmental/clinical/neuro/I-O readers and adjacent fields care? | The topic matters only to one specialty's insiders |
| **Synthesis-readiness** | Is the literature fragmented in a way a framework could resolve? | The field is already tidy (a textbook chapter covers it) — nothing to add |

A topic that is mature + important but **already well-synthesized** does not need an ARPsych review; the value is the *new organizing idea*, not the recap.

## Scoping the topic to the volume

ARPsych articles have a **length assigned in the invitation letter** (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准) — typically a focused subfield, not an entire domain. Calibrate scope so the review is:

- **Comprehensive within its frame** — a reader trusts it covers the relevant work (see `arpsych-comprehensiveness-and-balance`)
- **Bounded** — "X across the lifespan" or "the mechanisms of X", not "everything about X"
- **Current** — ARPsych prizes the recent frontier plus the foundational anchors; a pure history belongs elsewhere
- **Forward-looking** — the topic must support a genuine *future-directions* close, not just a wrap-up

A good test: can you name, in one phrase, the **organizing question** the review will answer (not the area it will cover)? "How do X and Y jointly shape Z?" beats "research on Z."

## Sibling-venue triage (route away if mismatched)

| If the topic is really… | The home is… | Tell |
|-------------------------|--------------|------|
| a stand-alone meta-analysis you want to run and submit | **Psychological Bulletin** | you have an effect to estimate, not a field to map |
| a clinical-psychology survey | **Annual Review of Clinical Psychology** (sister) | the audience is clinical scientists specifically |
| a short, provocative argument or commentary | **Perspectives on Psychological Science** | it is an opinion essay, not a survey of record |
| an original study with new data | a primary journal | you ran the study yourself |

## Checklist

- [ ] Topic clears Maturity, Importance, and Synthesis-readiness gates
- [ ] One-phrase **organizing question** is written (not just an area label)
- [ ] Scope is bounded to a plausible single-article length (per invitation norms)
- [ ] The topic supports a real future-directions agenda, not a recap
- [ ] Not better served by Psychological Bulletin / ARClinPsych / Perspectives
- [ ] Recent frontier + foundational anchors both exist in the literature
- [ ] The new contribution is an *organizing idea*, not a summary of known facts

## Anti-patterns

- Proposing an entire domain ("emotion", "memory") — unscopeable in one review
- Pitching a topic that is one lab's research program dressed as a field
- Choosing a topic so new it cannot yet be synthesized (review will be obsolete fast)
- Choosing a topic already covered by a recent ARPsych/Annual Reviews article (check the archive)
- Confusing "I want to publish a meta-analysis" with "the field needs a review" (→ Psych Bulletin)
- No organizing question — only a subject heading

## Output format

```text
【Organizing question】"<the one question the review answers>"
【Maturity / Importance / Synthesis-readiness】pass/fail each + why
【Scope】subfield + boundary (in/out) + plausible length
【Future-directions potential】Y/N — what the open agenda would be
【Sibling check】not Psych Bulletin / ARClinPsych / Perspectives because…
【Next step】→ arpsych-proposal-and-commissioning (get it to the Editorial Committee)
```