--- name: joap-topic-selection description: Use when deciding whether an I-O / applied-psychology project fits the Journal of Applied Psychology (JAP) and which article type to target. JAP wants a genuine theoretical contribution to work-and-organizational science backed by rigorous measurement, not a rigorous study with no theoretical advance. Frames the question and tests fit; it does not collect data. --- # Topic Selection & Fit (joap-topic-selection) JAP publishes original work that **advances theory about individual, team, and organizational phenomena at work** — motivation, leadership, selection and assessment, teams, job attitudes and well-being, justice, training, turnover. The cardinal fit test is **dual**: a real **theoretical contribution** *and* the **measurement/design rigor** to support a causal or cumulative claim. Use this skill to pressure-test fit before investing. ## When to trigger - Choosing among possible projects or framings for JAP - A reader said the work feels "atheoretical," "applied-but-not-novel," or "a better fit elsewhere" - Deciding between a **Feature Article** and a **Research Report** - Deciding whether the contribution is empirical, theory-development, or meta-analytic ## The fit test A strong JAP paper usually clears all four: 1. **Theoretical contribution.** It changes how I-O scholars understand a work phenomenon — a new mechanism, boundary condition, integration, or construct — not just a new context for a known effect. State the theoretical advance in one sentence. 2. **Measurement & design rigor.** Constructs are validly measured; the design supports the inference (causation, mediation, multilevel structure). A cross-sectional single-source correlation rarely clears the bar (see `joap-study-design`). 3. **Applied + scientific relevance.** The phenomenon matters for work and organizations *and* for theory; JAP is applied science, not consulting. 4. **Cumulative footing.** It is preregisterable / replicable and its data, materials, and code can be shared under the journal's TOP-aligned policy (see `joap-open-science-and-transparency`). ## Article type - **Feature Article** — a full, programmatic contribution; length commensurate with the contribution. - **Research Report** — a focused, shorter empirical contribution (often a tight multi-study package); confirm the current page/length cap on the official page (待核实). - **Theory-development / integrative review** — a conceptual advance or cumulative synthesis with no new primary data; `joap-theory-and-hypotheses` carries it. - **Qualitative research** — an I-O contribution built on qualitative evidence with explicit trustworthiness criteria. - **Meta-analysis** — a cumulative quantitative synthesis; transparency of coding and data is essential. ## Fit scoring — worked example (illustrative) Score a candidate against the four gates before investing. A leadership project, two framings: ``` Candidate A (off-fit): one cross-sectional survey (N = 220), servant leadership ↔ performance, all self-report, no theory advance. Theory ✗ (known correlation, new sample) Rigor ✗ (single-source CSV) Relevance ~ moderate Cumulative ~ (shareable but thin) Verdict: off-fit → reframe with a mechanism + multilevel/temporal design, or place in an applied outlet. Candidate B (strong): two-wave multilevel field study (N = 612 in 74 teams) + lab experiment; servant leadership → psychological safety → team performance; open data/materials, lab study preregistered. Theory ✓ (cross-level mechanism, boundary condition) Rigor ✓ (temporal separation, nesting modeled, experimental causal leg) Relevance ✓ Cumulative ✓ Verdict: strong fit → Feature Article. ``` ## Article-type decision rules | If the work is... | Target type | Why | |-------------------|-------------|-----| | Programmatic, multi-study, theory + rigor | Feature Article | the standard high-impact empirical slot | | Focused, shorter, still a clear contribution | Research Report | tighter budget; confirm current cap (待核实) | | A conceptual advance with no new data | Theory-development article | `joap-theory-and-hypotheses` is the spine | | A cumulative synthesis of an effect | Meta-analysis / integrative review | transparency of coding decisions is essential | | A qualitative I-O contribution | Qualitative research | state trustworthiness/credibility criteria | ## Reviewer / editor pushback at the fit stage - "No theoretical contribution" → name the new mechanism, boundary, or integration; rigor alone will not save an atheoretical paper here. - "Single-source cross-sectional" → add temporal separation, a second source, or an experimental leg before submitting (route to `joap-study-design`). - "Better fit for an applied/practitioner outlet" → if the advance is to practice but not to I-O theory, JAP is the wrong venue; reframe the scientific contribution or place elsewhere. ## Anti-patterns - A rigorous study with no advance in I-O theory (the most common JAP desk reject) - A known effect demonstrated in one new sample or context, framed as novel - Cross-sectional single-source self-report as the entire evidentiary base - Choosing a Feature Article when the contribution is genuinely a Research Report (over-claiming scope) - Confusing JAP with a sibling (Personnel Psychology, AMJ, OBHDP, JOB) and writing to the wrong bar ## Output format ``` 【Question / phenomenon】one sentence 【Theoretical contribution】new mechanism / boundary / integration / construct 【Rigor】design + measurement adequate for the claim? [Y/N] 【Relevance】applied + scientific stakes 【Cumulative】shareable + preregisterable under TOP? [Y/N] 【Type】Feature Article / Research Report / theory-development / review / qualitative / meta-analysis 【Fit verdict】strong / needs reframing / off-fit (why) 【Next】joap-theory-and-hypotheses ``` ## Supplementary resources - [`../../resources/external_tools.md`](../../resources/external_tools.md) — preregistration, repositories, I-O measurement and meta-analysis tooling - [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — scope, accepted article types, and length policy