ppsych-workflow
GitHubPoPS稿件路由技能，根据生命周期阶段和贡献类型（综述、理论、元科学等），指引用户选择正确的ppsych-*子技能，用于序列化管理从选题到修订的投稿流程。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill ppsych-workflow -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "ppsych-workflow",
"description": "Use when deciding which ppsych-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing a broad integrative review, theoretical statement, or meta-science piece from topic through revision for a Perspectives on Psychological Science (PoPS) manuscript. Routes by lifecycle stage and contribution type; it dispatches and does not draft content."
}
PoPS Workflow Router (ppsych-workflow)
Overview
This is the router. It tells you which ppsych- skill to use at the current stage* of a manuscript aimed at Perspectives on Psychological Science (PoPS) — the SAGE journal published in partnership with the Association for Psychological Science (APS), a bimonthly, broad, integrative outlet (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). PoPS does not publish single empirical studies (those go to Psychological Science) or routine meta-analyses (those go to specialized review journals). It publishes broad integrative reviews, overviews of research programs, theoretical and conceptual statements, methodology and meta-science commentary, and big-picture "perspective" pieces across all of psychology and adjacent behavioral, social, neuro, and methods fields (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). The contribution is a field-shaping synthesis or argument, not a new dataset.
So the lifecycle is not "design → run → estimate → defend." It is: find a synthesis- or argument-worthy question → decide whether a proposal is required → read across areas → impose an organizing framework → make the treatment comprehensive and balanced → model exemplary open science → manage the editor relationship → submit → revise. Default assumption unless the user says otherwise: the target is PoPS and the artefact is a broad integrative/theoretical/meta-science piece, not a primary-research paper.
When to trigger
- The user asks "what should I do next?" on a PoPS review, theoretical statement, or meta-science piece
- A draft reads like an annotated bibliography or a single-study report and needs a spine or a venue check
- Work is ping-ponging between coverage, framing, balance, open-science, and the proposal route
- A PoPS decision letter arrived and the user needs to switch into revision mode
First question: contribution type
| Situation | Type | Route note |
|---|---|---|
| Broad cross-area synthesis / overview of a research program | Stand-alone integrative review | main pipeline; proposal optional |
| A unifying theoretical / conceptual / metatheoretical argument | Theoretical statement | ppsych-organizing-framework is the engine |
| Systematic evidence about the field's practices (replication, bias, methods) | Meta-science / methodology | ppsych-transparency-and-reproducibility early |
| Special issue, adversarial collaboration, multilab effort | Cooperative contribution | proposal required → ppsych-proposal-and-commissioning |
| Biography, book review, humor/opinion essay | Miscellaneous | proposal required → ppsych-proposal-and-commissioning |
| Single empirical study, or a routine meta-analysis | Out of scope | → Psychological Science / a specialized review journal |
A positive editor reaction to a proposal is not an invitation; all manuscripts go through the same review (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).
Routing table (symptom → next skill)
| Current symptom | Next skill |
|---|---|
| Unsure the question is PoPS-shaped (broad, integrative, not a single study) | ppsych-topic-selection |
| Need a proposal (cooperative/miscellaneous) or want to test a stand-alone idea | ppsych-proposal-and-commissioning |
| Reading is unsystematic; cross-area coverage gaps likely | ppsych-literature-synthesis |
| Draft is a list of papers, not an argument about the field | ppsych-organizing-framework |
| Coverage, balance, or fairness across areas/camps in doubt | ppsych-comprehensiveness-and-balance |
| Need a framework figure or who-found-what / practice-prevalence table | ppsych-tables-figures |
| Prose dense or insular; a psychologist from another area can't follow | ppsych-writing-style |
| Open data/materials/code, preregistration of a meta-science protocol | ppsych-transparency-and-reproducibility |
| Working with the editor on scope / what referees will weigh | ppsych-editor-strategy |
| Ready to submit; need a preflight and reviewer suggestions | ppsych-submission |
| Received a PoPS decision letter | ppsych-revision |
Default order
ppsych-topic-selection— confirm the question is broad, integrative, PoPS-scaleppsych-proposal-and-commissioning— proposal route (required for cooperative/miscellaneous)ppsych-literature-synthesis— read across areas systematicallyppsych-organizing-framework— impose the analytical/conceptual spineppsych-comprehensiveness-and-balance— fair, field-spanning, reform-minded but evidence-basedppsych-tables-figures— framework figure + summary/prevalence exhibitsppsych-writing-style— the PoPS voice (broad, provocative, accessible); abstract ≤ 200 words lastppsych-transparency-and-reproducibility— exemplary open science (PoPS is a leader)ppsych-editor-strategy— scope and the editor relationshipppsych-submission— ScholarOne preflight + suggested reviewersppsych-revision— after the decision letter
ppsych-writing-styleis a late polish — do not rewrite the intro before the framework and balance settle. For meta-science, pullppsych-transparency-and-reproducibilityforward: the systematic protocol is part of the design, not an afterthought.
Anti-patterns
- Treating PoPS like Psychological Science: it does not take single empirical studies or routine meta-analyses (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准)
- Submitting a cooperative or miscellaneous piece with no proposal, or reading a proposal's positive feedback as an acceptance
- The annotated-bibliography failure: a "review" with no organizing argument
- Letting the author's own program become the review's center of gravity (self-promotion)
- Confusing PoPS with Psychological Bulletin (formal meta-analyses), Annual Review of Psychology (invited subfield surveys), or Current Directions (short, non-technical) — PoPS is the APS broad integrative + meta-science flagship
Routing by archetype
| Archetype | Likely first bottleneck | Enter at |
|---|---|---|
| field-defining integrative review | scope is enormous; needs a taxonomy | ppsych-organizing-framework |
| unifying theoretical statement | the argument itself, not coverage | ppsych-organizing-framework |
| meta-science / reform piece | systematic evidence + open protocol | ppsych-transparency-and-reproducibility |
| big-picture opinion / perspective | is it broad and defensible enough for PoPS? | ppsych-topic-selection |
Minimal decision snippet
if decision_letter: -> ppsych-revision
elif ready_to_submit: -> ppsych-submission
elif open_science_or_metascience: -> ppsych-transparency-and-reproducibility
elif prose_dense_or_insular: -> ppsych-writing-style
elif need_tables_or_figures: -> ppsych-tables-figures
elif coverage_or_balance_in_doubt: -> ppsych-comprehensiveness-and-balance
elif reads_like_a_list: -> ppsych-organizing-framework
elif reading_unsystematic: -> ppsych-literature-synthesis
elif needs_proposal_or_idea_test: -> ppsych-proposal-and-commissioning
else: -> ppsych-topic-selection
Supplementary resources
../../resources/external_tools.md— search, preregistration, repositories, synthesis tooling../../resources/official-source-map.md— official PoPS URLs behind every fact in this pack
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 14:11
