--- name: psychrev-workflow description: Use when deciding which psychrev-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing a theory or formal-model manuscript from problem framing through masked-review revision for a Psychological Review submission. Routes — does not replace — the specialized skills. --- # 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`). ## Stage-gate audit sheet Re-run this audit at the start of each work session. Route to the **first open gate**; never check a later gate while an earlier one is open. ```text PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW — THEORY MANUSCRIPT GATE SHEET Manuscript: ____________________ Session date: __________ [ ] G1 Theoretical problem stated; confirmed non-empirical ......... psychrev-topic-selection [ ] G2 Theories extended + rival models to beat are named .......... psychrev-literature-positioning [ ] G3 Assumptions, mechanisms, formal structure built ............. psychrev-theory-construction [ ] G4 Predictions derived; confronted with data and rivals ........ psychrev-argument-development [ ] G5 Scope, identifiability, and non-explananda stated ........... psychrev-boundary-conditions [ ] G6 Model diagram + simulated-behavior figures render ........... psychrev-conceptual-exhibits [ ] G7 Advance over the prior model articulated .................... psychrev-contribution-framing [ ] G8 Prose is mechanism-first APA, not a review essay ............ psychrev-writing-style [ ] G9 Editorial Manager preflight passed (model code attached) .... psychrev-submission [ ] G10 Masked-review + Theoretical Notes expectations understood ... psychrev-review-process [ ] G11 Response document tracks the revised THEORY, not letters .... psychrev-rebuttal Hard rule: G6–G8 are polish gates — they stay closed until G4 holds. ``` ## 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.