Arpsych editor strategy
Journal-specific Claude Code/Codex skill packs covering mainstream journals — AER, QJE, Nature, Cell, 管理世界, 经济研究 & 200+ more — your fast track to getting published. ｜ 覆盖主流期刊的 Claude Code/Codex 期刊技能包，从选题、识别策略到表格规范与审稿回复全流程，助你快速发论文。
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill arpsych-editor-strategyAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
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).
SKILL.md
4.9 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
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
【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)