Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› ppsych-tables-figures
ppsych-tables-figures
GitHub用于为《Perspectives on Psychological Science》撰写综述性图表，包括概念框架图、谁发现了什么的总结表及元科学展示。遵循APA风格，强调跨领域可读性与数据可信度，不生成原始实验结果表。
Trigger Scenarios
需要可视化领域整体概览以辅助跨领域读者理解
争议或效应群体更适合用表格而非正文呈现
需绘制概念框架或分类体系图作为核心论点支撑
需展示特定研究实践（如预注册）的普及率或复制景观
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill ppsych-tables-figures -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "ppsych-tables-figures",
"description": "Use when building exhibits for a Perspectives on Psychological Science (PoPS) piece — the conceptual\/framework figure, who-found-what summary tables, and (for meta-science) practice-prevalence or replication exhibits. Designs review\/synthesis exhibits in APA style; it does not produce original-experiment result tables (a PoPS review reports no new study of its own)."
}
Tables & Figures for a PoPS Piece (ppsych-tables-figures)
When to trigger
- The synthesis is done and a cross-area reader needs to see the field at a glance
- A controversy or a body of effects would be clearer as a table than as prose
- The organizing framework would land better as a diagram (often the signature exhibit)
- For meta-science: prevalence of a practice, or a replication landscape, needs a figure
- You are tempted to paste an experiment's result table — but this is a perspective, not a primary paper
The exhibit types a PoPS piece actually uses
PoPS exhibits summarize or conceptualize across the literature; they do not present the author's own experiment. The workhorses:
| Exhibit | Purpose | Design notes |
|---|---|---|
| Conceptual / framework figure | render the organizing spine — taxonomy tree, theory diagram, the reframe | usually the piece's signature exhibit; restate-able from memory by a non-specialist |
| Who-found-what summary table | one row per study/area: construct, design, sample, finding (direction + magnitude), credibility note | rows ordered by framework cells, not chronology; only comparable constructs share a column |
| Practice-prevalence / meta-science exhibit | bar/trend of how common a practice is; replication-outcome landscape; power distribution | only when the underlying coding is systematic and reproducible |
| Forest / meta-analytic plot | pooled effect with uncertainty | only when estimates are commensurable and you are doing a real meta-analysis |
Building a credible summary table
- Compare like with like. Group studies that measure the same construct; never put non-comparable constructs in one magnitude column.
- Carry uncertainty and credibility. A finding column without effect sizes / CIs and a credibility note invites "but how good is that study?" — answer it in the table.
- Self-contained APA captions. A PoPS exhibit is read on its own by an outsider; the note states what the table shows, the unit, how to read a row, and the source studies (APA table/figure conventions).
- Source every cell. Each entry traces to a paper in the evidence matrix; an unsourced number in a field-shaping piece is indefensible.
The conceptual figure is PoPS's signature
Because the readership is cross-area, the framework figure carries disproportionate weight: it is what a psychologist from another area remembers and reuses. Invest in one diagram that renders the spine cleanly — a taxonomy tree, a theory flow, or the reframe — so a reader who recalls nothing else can reconstruct the argument. Design for legibility in the published format and confirm current figure specs and color policy on the author pages (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).
Meta-science exhibits: show the practice, not a vibe
A reform argument lands when the reader sees the prevalence:
- A bar/trend of preregistration, open-data, or replication rates over time makes "the field is changing" concrete.
- A funnel plot or p-curve makes a publication-bias claim auditable rather than rhetorical.
- Every such exhibit must come from the documented, reproducible coding in
ppsych-literature-synthesis— a prevalence figure with an undisclosed sampling frame is the very opacity reform opposes. Note the sampling frame and coding rules in the caption, and deposit the data/code (seeppsych-transparency-and-reproducibility).
Reproduced vs. re-drawn figures
When a figure from a reviewed paper is central, prefer a re-drawn synthesis figure (your own panel placing several studies on common axes) over copying one paper's exhibit — it serves the argument and avoids consensus-by-accident. If you reproduce an original figure, attribute it and secure any permission SAGE requires (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).
Checklist
- Each exhibit synthesizes/conceptualizes across studies (no original-experiment result output)
- Summary-table rows ordered by framework cells; only comparable constructs share a column
- Finding columns carry effect sizes/CIs and a credibility note, not bare claims
- The conceptual figure renders the spine and is restate-able from memory by a non-specialist
- Any meta-science/forest exhibit pools only commensurable estimates; sampling frame disclosed
- Captions/notes are self-contained and APA-styled (what / unit / how to read / sources)
- Every cell sources to a paper in the evidence matrix; meta-science data/code depositable
- Figure specs / color policy / permissions confirmed against current SAGE author pages (volatile)
Anti-patterns
- Pasting a regression/ANOVA table of the author's own new study — a perspective reports no new results
- A who-found-what table that pools incomparable constructs into one magnitude column
- A prevalence figure or forest plot with an undisclosed, unreproducible sampling frame
- Finding columns with no effect size or credibility note
- A decorative figure that does not encode the framework — wasting the signature exhibit
- Exhibits whose captions need the body text to be intelligible (fails the cross-area reader)
Output format
【Exhibit set】<list: conceptual figure / summary tables / prevalence / forest>
【Conceptual figure】renders the spine; restate-able from memory? Y/N
【Summary table】rows by framework cell; comparable constructs only; effect sizes + credibility? Y/N
【Meta-science exhibit】sampling frame disclosed; coding reproducible? Y/N · N/A
【Forest plot】pools only commensurable estimates (or omitted)? Y/N · N/A
【Sourcing】every cell traces to the evidence matrix? Y/N
【APA/specs/permissions】captions APA; specs + permissions confirmed on SAGE pages? Y/N · 待核实
【Next step】→ ppsych-writing-style (weave exhibits into the synthesis prose)
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 14:11
