Jpsp review process

Review Process — Per Section (jpsp-review-process)

JPSP is reviewed inside one of three independently edited sections, by an editor and reviewers who are mutually masked to the authors. Knowing how your section frames decisions helps you anticipate what reviewers will ask. The IRGP section has published an unusually explicit review model (below); ASC and PPID share the masked, theory-first culture but set their own specifics (verify).

When to trigger

• Anticipating how the section will evaluate the paper before submitting
• Interpreting a decision letter's framing (innovation, central vs. peripheral limitations)
• Deciding whether a prospective design should be a Registered Report (Stage 1)

How the section judges a paper

1. Section routing. The paper is handled by the editor of the section you submitted to (ASC, IRGP, or PPID); a mis-fit paper can be re-routed or returned. Choose the section deliberately (jpsp-topic-selection).
2. Triage. Papers limited in theoretical scope or methodologically deficient may be triaged (desk-screened) so authors can move on quickly (IRGP guidance; verify per section).
3. Innovation gate. Reviewers first judge whether the underlying ideas are sufficiently innovative/generative — often independent of data strength. A "no" focuses the review on why the theoretical bar is unmet; a "yes/probably yes" moves to evaluating the studies.
4. Central vs. peripheral limitations (IRGP). Reviewers categorize limitations as central (must be fixed for the studies to be interpretable) or peripheral (could be fixed but the work is already compelling), and central ones as addressable with existing vs. new data.
5. Decision categories (IRGP, verify per section):
   • Accept with revision — may be offered on the first round when the paper is sufficiently innovative with no central limitations.
   • Revise and resubmit — central limitations addressable with existing studies/data.
   • Reject — central limitations require new studies/data (a later resubmission with new data is treated as a new submission). Revised manuscripts are often decided without further reviews.
6. Masked review. Both directions masked — keep identity out of text, files, and repository links.

Anti-patterns

• Submitting to the wrong section and hoping the editor re-routes favorably
• Leading with method polish when the idea has not cleared the innovation gate
• Treating an R&R as acceptance — central limitations still gate the decision
• Resubmitting a rejected paper with brand-new data and expecting continuity (it is a new submission)
• De-anonymizing yourself via self-references or repository URLs

Desk-screen patterns the three sections share

Across ASC, IRGP, and PPID the editor-level screen rejects on a small set of recurring failures. Treat these as illustrative of the post-credibility-revolution culture rather than codified rules — confirm current section policy against the journal's submission guidelines (待核实).

Desk-screen pattern	What it signals to the section editor	Pre-empt by
Single-study submission	Not built to the long-format, multi-study standard	A converging package (jpsp-study-design) before submitting
Thin theory, clean effect	Fails the innovation gate independent of data	A theoretical advance, not a demonstration (jpsp-theory-and-hypotheses)
Wrong section	Mis-fit for the editor's masthead and readers	Deliberate section choice (jpsp-topic-selection)
Under-masked manuscript	Breaks masked review	Strip names, self-refs, metadata, repo URLs (jpsp-submission)
Missing JARS / TOP disclosures	Transparency floor unmet	Complete JARS + TOP Level 2 statements (jpsp-open-science-and-transparency)
Underpowered key study	Central interpretability risk	Power against the smallest effect of interest

Worked example: tracing a package through the gate

Illustrative — invented to show the decision sequence, not a real verdict.

An IRGP submission claims a new group-identity moderator across four studies (illustrative pooled d = 0.29, 95% CI [0.16, 0.42]).

1. Routing. Unit of analysis is the group → IRGP, not ASC; a mis-route risks a return.
2. Innovation gate. The moderator reconciles two conflicting findings → "probably yes," so review proceeds to the studies.
3. Central vs. peripheral. Reviewers flag S3's N = 80 dyads as central, existing-data (re-analyzable) but call a missing manipulation check peripheral.
4. Decision. No central limitation needs new data → R&R, often decided without further review. Had S3 required a brand-new sample, a later resubmission would count as a new submission.

Output format

【Section + editor stream】ASC / IRGP / PPID
【Innovation gate】is the idea a "yes/probably yes"? why
【Likely limitations】central vs peripheral; existing vs new data to fix
【Plausible decision】accept-with-revision / R&R / reject (section-specific)
【Registered Report?】if prospective, Stage 1 considered?
【Next】jpsp-submission (pre-submit) or jpsp-rebuttal (on decision)

Supplementary resources

• ../../resources/external_tools.md — preregistration / Registered Report tooling
• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — IRGP review model, masked-review policy, per-section editors