psychrev-writing-style
GitHub用于在理论推导完成后，将心理学期刊稿件润色为APA第7版格式及理论论文语体。聚焦机制导向写作，消除实证报告式表述，确保符合Psychological Review的规范与风格。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill psychrev-writing-style -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "psychrev-writing-style",
"description": "Use when polishing a Psychological Review manuscript to APA house style and theory-paper register — mechanism-first prose, model vocabulary, no empirical-report framing. A late-stage polish; it does NOT build the theory (psychrev-theory-construction) or derive its predictions (psychrev-argument-development)."
}
Writing Style: APA Theory-Paper Register (psychrev-writing-style)
Polish after the derivations stand up (
psychrev-argument-development) and the contribution is differentiated (psychrev-contribution-framing). Prose cannot rescue a theory whose logic does not hold.
When to trigger
- The theory, derivations, and figures are in place; the draft needs its final voice
- The prose reads like a literature review or an empirical report, not a theoretical argument
- You are unsure of APA conventions for a theory paper with no methods/results
- Reviewers (anticipated) will say "well written but I can't find the argument"
The Psychological Review introduction arc
A Review introduction moves: the phenomenon/tension → the standing theories and what they
cannot do → the move this paper makes (the model/mechanism) → the contribution, stated early
→ a brief roadmap. State what the paper delivers within the first page or two; do not bury
the theoretical move under a survey. The arc is the same disciplined shape used in the worked
example in resources/worked-examples/01-introduction.md.
Register: the vocabulary is theory, not data
The single most common tell of a wrong-register draft is empirical vocabulary. At Psychological Review you write about a model, its assumptions, mechanisms, parameters, predictions, and scope — not about "the study," "we found," "results," "significant," or "p < .05" (you ran no experiment). Existing data are evidence the model confronts, never the contribution.
| Avoid (empirical register) | Use (theory register) |
|---|---|
| "We found that..." | "The model predicts / entails that..." |
| "Our results show..." | "The derivation shows... / Simulation shows..." |
| "was significant (p < .05)" | "the predicted ordering holds / the signature appears" |
| "we ran a study / experiment" | "we derive... / we simulate... / existing data show..." |
| "limitation of this study" | "boundary condition of the theory" |
| "future research should test" | "the theory makes the falsifiable prediction that..." |
APA house-style essentials
- APA 7th-edition formatting: double-spaced, 12-pt, 1-inch margins, author–date citations, full reference list (verify the current edition on the author page; 检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).
- Abstract within the journal's limit (250 words, verify) — state the problem, the theoretical move, and the contribution; no data/results language.
- Define every construct/parameter on first use and use the term consistently thereafter (construct clarity, in the spirit of APA theory-paper norms).
- Equations numbered and referenced in text; notation defined at first use and kept consistent.
- Plain, precise, mechanism-first sentences; avoid hedging chains and decorative jargon.
- Headings organize by theory, not by IMRaD — there is no Method or Results section; typical spine is problem → model → derivations/confrontation → scope → general discussion.
Checklist
- Introduction follows phenomenon/tension → standing theories' gap → the move → contribution-early → roadmap
- No empirical-report vocabulary ("we found," "results," "significant," "study")
- Existing data framed as evidence the model confronts, never as the contribution
- Every construct/parameter defined on first use and used consistently
- Equations numbered; notation defined and consistent
- Abstract within the limit; states problem, move, contribution; no results language
- APA 7th citations/references; headings organized by theory, not IMRaD
Anti-patterns
- A dictionary/survey opening ("X has been studied extensively...") instead of the tension
- Empirical-report register in a theory paper (the wrong-journal tell)
- Burying the contribution on page 10 under a literature review
- Inconsistent notation or undefined parameters
- Decorative formalism — equations that add symbols but no theoretical content
- Over-signposted roadmaps doing the work the argument should do
Output format
【Intro arc】tension → standing-theory gap → the move → contribution-early → roadmap: yes / fix
【Register】no empirical vocabulary; data = evidence, not contribution: yes / fix
【Definitions/notation】constructs & parameters defined once, used consistently: yes / fix
【APA】7th-ed citations; abstract ≤ limit; theory-organized headings: yes / fix
【Next step】psychrev-submission (Editorial Manager preflight)
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 14:15
