Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› spq-review-process
spq-review-process
GitHub解析《社会心理学季刊》(SPQ) 的审稿流程，涵盖盲审要求、领域契合度筛选及决策模式。帮助用户在投稿前优化论文结构以符合社会学社会心理学传统，避免格式错误导致临时拒稿，并正确解读编辑决定。
Trigger Scenarios
投稿前进行盲审和领域契合度压力测试
解读编辑决定信并设定预期
了解不同学派审稿人的关注点
评估贡献是否适合发表为文章或笔记
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill spq-review-process -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "spq-review-process",
"description": "Use to understand how Social Psychology Quarterly (SPQ) evaluates a manuscript — masked (blinded) review, the blinding check that temporarily rejects under-blinded papers, what reviewers from different sociological-social-psychology traditions weigh, and the reject \/ revise-and-resubmit \/ accept decision pattern. Sets expectations and shapes the paper to survive review; it does not contact editors."
}
Review Process (spq-review-process)
Knowing how SPQ screens and decides lets you pre-empt failure modes before submitting. SPQ uses masked review and draws reviewers from across sociological social psychology, so a paper must read as a genuine contribution to the field's traditions and must arrive properly blinded.
When to trigger
- Before submitting, to stress-test fit and blinding
- Interpreting a decision letter and setting expectations
- Understanding what reviewers from your tradition (and adjacent ones) will weigh
- Deciding whether the contribution is strong enough for an Article or better as a Note
How SPQ review works
- Masked / blinded. Reviewers should not be able to identify the authors. You submit a blinded manuscript (no identifiers) plus a separate title page file. If the manuscript is not sufficiently blinded, the editorial office temporarily rejects it and returns it for reformatting before review resumes — an avoidable delay.
- Fit screening. Editors assess whether the paper is genuinely sociological social psychology — does it illuminate the link between social structure/process and the individual? Work that is purely individual cognition or purely macro sociology is a poor fit and may be screened out.
- External review. Papers are sent to expert reviewers, typically from the relevant tradition (symbolic interaction, SSP, group processes, identity, affect) and sometimes an adjacent one.
- Current masthead and metrics. SAGE lists Joseph C. Dippong and Lisa Slattery Walker as editors, with a displayed acceptance rate of 10.7%, average manuscript review time of 7.9 weeks, and average acceptance-to-online-publication time of 69 days. Treat these as planning signals, not promises.
- Decision pattern. Outcomes are reject, revise and resubmit, or accept (accept usually after revision). An R&R is an opportunity, not a promise.
- Data sharing is not a review criterion. SPQ encourages sharing but willingness to share data has
no impact on acceptance (see
spq-data-and-transparency) — don't expect credit or penalty for it.
Shape the paper to pass
- Make the structure–individual link explicit so the fit is obvious to an editor and any reviewer.
- Engage the right tradition/program so specialist reviewers see you know the frontier (see
spq-literature-positioning). - Validate measures / standardize the experimental setting so a methods-minded reviewer trusts the result.
- Blind thoroughly before submission to avoid a temporary rejection (see
spq-submission). - Clear ethics/IRB, consent, and confidentiality up front.
Anti-patterns
- Submitting an under-blinded manuscript (triggers temporary rejection)
- Sending a JPSP/Psychological Science-style individual-cognition paper to SPQ (fit screen)
- Sending a macro-sociology paper with no social-psychological mechanism (fit screen)
- Expecting open data to improve your odds (it does not)
- Assuming an R&R is a near-acceptance — revise seriously
Review-risk pass for Social Psychology Quarterly
Run this as a concrete capability pass. First lock the social-psychological process, measurement, design, and boundary condition across groups or contexts; then test whether the manuscript addresses social-psychology reviewers who expect interaction, identity, group process, or status mechanisms grounded in sociological theory.
- Primary move: Turn likely reviewer objections into a ledger with response evidence, manuscript location, and the decision-maker who must be convinced first.
- Decision ledger: return
claim / evidence / blocker / next editrows so the next pass can patch the manuscript directly. - Sibling comparison: compare against JPSP for psychology breadth, ASR/AJS for sociology theory stakes, Social Forces for broader empirical sociology; if the neighboring outlet has the stronger audience claim, recommend re-routing before polishing.
- Verification floor: before submission-ready advice, re-open
resources/official-source-map.mdand name the live-check item that could change the upload plan.
Output format
【Fit】clearly sociological social psychology (structure–individual link)? [Y/N]
【Blinding】manuscript blinded + separate title page ready? [Y/N]
【Tradition reviewers】which program(s) will review it; frontier engaged? [Y/N]
【Measurement/setting credible】[Y/N]
【Realistic outcome】reject / R&R / accept-after-revision
【Next】spq-submission (or spq-rebuttal if decided)
Supplementary resources
../../resources/official-source-map.md— masked-review and blinding rules, fit/scope, data-policy stance
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 14:25
