Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› jcp-review-process
jcp-review-process
GitHub用于校准JCP期刊审稿预期，解析编辑决定信中的核心要求（如机制验证、新研究需求），评估修改可行性，并提供针对拒稿或修回的策略建议。
Trigger Scenarios
收到JCP审稿决定信并需解读编辑意图
评估修改请求的可行性或判断是否为委婉拒稿
审稿人反复质疑研究过程未确立，需制定应对策略
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill jcp-review-process -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "jcp-review-process",
"description": "Use when calibrating expectations for the Journal of Consumer Psychology (JCP) review cycle — desk-screen odds, the area-editor\/reviewer model, what \"process is thin\" really means, R&R norms, and the new-studies expectation. Sets expectations and revision strategy; the response letter itself is jcp-rebuttal."
}
Review Process (jcp-review-process)
When to trigger
- A decision letter arrived and you must read what the editor actually wants
- You are weighing whether the requested revision is feasible (new studies?) or a polite reject
- You want realistic odds before submitting, or before investing in another study
- Reviewers raise the same complaint ("the process isn't established") and you need a strategy
- Deciding whether to push back, comply, or withdraw and reroute to a sibling
How JCP review works
A JCP submission goes to the editor (EiC David Wooten through 2026, with Co-Editors Rajesh Bagchi and Aparna Labroo; Bagchi becomes EiC for 2027–2029 — verified 2026-06-22, re-verify the masthead), who may desk-reject for fit (no psychological process, wrong outlet, out of scope) or assign it to an area/associate editor who recruits reviewers — typically several SCP-community experts under double-blind review (confirm the exact model on the current Wiley/myscp author page). The editor synthesizes the reviews into a decision: reject, major revision (R&R), minor revision, or accept. As at peer experimental journals, the most common positive outcome is a major revision, and at JCP that very often means running new studies — not just reanalysis — to nail down the process.
Outcomes to plan for:
| Decision | What it usually means | Your move |
|---|---|---|
| Desk reject | Fit/process problem the editor saw immediately | reroute (jcp-topic-selection) or rebuild the mechanism (jcp-theory-development) |
| Reject after review | Core process claim not believed, or fatal confound | major rebuild or reroute; rarely worth appealing |
| Major revision (R&R) | The process is promising but not yet proven | plan new studies; this is the modal "good" outcome |
| Minor revision | Mechanism convincing; polish and clarify | comply tightly; do not reopen settled issues |
Reading the letter for the binding constraint
- "Effect in search of a process / mechanism unclear" — the central JCP demand. Expect to add a manipulated-mediator or moderation-of-process study. This is the make-or-break.
- "Alternative explanation not ruled out" — design a study (or moderation) that your process predicts and the rival does not.
- "Underpowered / not pre-registered / robustness" — replicate at higher power, pre-register the confirmatory follow-up.
- "Stimulus-bound / generalizability" — add operationalizations, populations, or a consequential DV.
- Editor's own framing — weight the editor's summary above any single reviewer; that is the contract for the revision.
Calibrating effort and timeline
- A JCP R&R commonly requires months of new data collection; budget the studies before promising them.
- If the editor signals the process concern is fundamental (not "add a study" but "the mechanism may be wrong"), assess honestly whether a fix exists before sinking another study in.
- If two strong reviewers disagree, let the editor's letter arbitrate; do not try to satisfy a reviewer the editor has discounted.
- A polite "we'd consider a substantially different paper" is a reject; treat it as one.
Checklist
- You have identified the editor's binding concern, not just listed all reviewer points
- You have judged whether the R&R needs new studies and which ones
- For each major comment, there is a feasible study or analysis (not just prose)
- The process/alternative-explanation demands have concrete experimental answers planned
- You have a realistic timeline for new data collection before committing
- You can tell an honest R&R from a soft reject and act accordingly
Anti-patterns
- Reanalysis-only response to a "mechanism unclear" letter that clearly needs a new study
- Reviewer-by-reviewer firefighting that ignores the editor's synthesized priority
- Over-promising studies you cannot run in the revision window
- Appealing a fit desk-reject instead of rerouting to the right outlet
- Treating a soft reject as an R&R and pouring months into a paper the editor has closed
Output format
【Decision type】desk reject / reject / major R&R / minor / accept
【Editor's binding concern】the one thing the revision must fix
【New studies needed?】yes (which) / no (reanalysis suffices)
【Alternative-explanation plan】study or moderation that adjudicates
【Timeline realism】can the studies run in the window? [Y/N]
【Go / no-go】revise / reroute / withdraw
【Next skill】jcp-rebuttal
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 13:29
