Psychrev review process
Skill brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/Psychological-Review-Skills/skills/psychrev-review-process
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 psychrev-review-processAssembled 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 anticipating how a Psychological Review manuscript will be evaluated — masked peer review, the kinds of decisions, article types (full article vs. Theoretical Note), and what reviewers at a theory journal actually probe. Explains the process; it does NOT write the response document (that is psychrev-rebuttal) or run the submission preflight (psychrev-submission).
SKILL.md
5.2 KB, ~1.1k tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it
Understanding the Review Process (psychrev-review-process)
When to trigger
- Before submitting, to understand what you are walking into
- A decision letter has arrived and you must read it correctly before responding
- You are unsure whether your piece is a full article or a Theoretical Note
- You want to anticipate the theory-specific objections reviewers will raise
How Psychological Review is reviewed
- Masked (anonymous) peer review. Manuscripts are fully anonymized so the body carries no author-identifying content; the title page (authors, affiliations, ORCID, contact) is separate. (Verify current masking policy on the author page; 检索于 2026-06;以官网为准.)
- Handled through Editorial Manager (editorialmanager.com/rev, 检索于 2026-06;以官网为准).
- Reviewers are drawn from the modeling/theory tradition you enter — typically proponents or
critics of the rival models you must beat. Positioning honestly (
psychrev-literature-positioning) matters precisely because the rivals' authors may review you. - The editor (currently Elena L. Grigorenko, PhD, editor since 2022; web-verified 2026-06-22, re-verify before relying) makes the call, weighing whether the theoretical contribution is genuine and general.
Article types (confirm current list on the author page)
- Theoretical articles — the main vehicle: a new theory/model, a formal account, or a major synthesis that yields new theory. No upper length bound, but texts over 15,000 words must be justified (检索于 2026-06;以官网为准).
- Theoretical Notes — shorter commentaries that advance a subfield: critiques of a theoretical approach, discussions of published work, or meta-theoretical argument. Pick this type when your contribution is a focused theoretical point, not a full new model.
- Replications are publishable only when relevant to / embedded in new or enhanced theory, and should be mentioned in the abstract (检索于 2026-06;以官网为准).
What reviewers at a theory journal actually probe
| Reviewer question | Where you should have answered it |
|---|---|
| Is this theory or a disguised empirical paper? | psychrev-topic-selection |
| Which standing models does it beat, and fairly? | psychrev-literature-positioning |
| Are the assumptions explicit and the mechanism real? | psychrev-theory-construction |
| Do the predictions follow, and could they be wrong? | psychrev-argument-development |
| Is the model identifiable; does a rival mimic it? | psychrev-boundary-conditions |
| Is the advance new, or a relabel / better fit? | psychrev-contribution-framing |
| For computational models: is the code available? | psychrev-submission |
Decision types (typical scholarly-journal ladder; confirm specifics)
- Reject (often desk-level for empirical papers or insufficient theoretical advance)
- Major revision — the common "promising" outcome; the bar rises across rounds
- Minor revision — rare on a first decision for a theory paper
- Accept — usually only after one or more revision rounds
Multiple rounds are normal at a theory journal; treat a major revision as an invitation to strengthen the theory itself, not merely to answer comments.
Checklist
- Manuscript fully anonymized for masked review; separate title page prepared
- Correct article type chosen (full theoretical article vs. Theoretical Note)
- Anticipated reviewer objections mapped to the skill that should have addressed them
- If computational: model code prepared for sharing (see
psychrev-submission) - Decision letter (if any) read for the theoretical asks, not just surface edits
Anti-patterns
- Assuming a single round; the bar rises as the theory is pushed harder
- Treating reviewers as outsiders — they are often the rival modelers themselves
- Choosing a full article when the contribution is really a Theoretical Note (or vice versa)
- Reading a major revision as a list of edits rather than a mandate to strengthen the theory
- Leaving identifiability or rival-mimicry unaddressed and hoping reviewers miss it
Output format
【Review model】masked; Editorial Manager; reviewers from the rival tradition
【Article type】theoretical article | Theoretical Note (+ length justification if > limit)
【Anticipated objections】[objection → skill that addresses it] (table)
【Decision read】[if letter present: the theoretical asks beneath the comments]
【Next step】psychrev-submission (preflight) or psychrev-rebuttal (after a revise decision)