Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› psychrev-review-process
psychrev-review-process
GitHub解析Psychological Review期刊的审稿流程，包括匿名评审机制、文章类型区分及理论型审稿关注点。用于投稿前预判评估标准或解读拒稿/修改意见，不涵盖回复信撰写或提交预检。
Trigger Scenarios
投稿前了解审稿预期与风险
收到决定信后需正确解读评审意见
不确定稿件属于全文还是理论备注
预判理论类审稿人可能提出的异议
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill psychrev-review-process -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "psychrev-review-process",
"description": "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)."
}
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)
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 14:15
