ARPsych Workflow Router (arpsych-workflow)

Overview

This is the router. It tells you which arpsych- skill to use at the current stage* of an invited review article aimed at the Annual Review of Psychology (ARPsych) — the Annual Reviews (nonprofit) survey series for psychology, founded 1950, published as an annual volume, and edited by Susan T. Fiske (检索于 2026-06；editor since 2000；以官网为准). It is among the highest-impact journals in the field (检索于 2026-06；JIF ~29.4 in 2024, ranked #1 in Psychology；以官网为准). ARPsych does not publish original empirical studies. It publishes authoritative, accessible review articles that synthesize a topic — across cognitive, social, developmental, clinical, biological/neuro, I-O, and methods psychology — for the whole field and adjacent disciplines. So the lifecycle is not "design → run → analyze → defend"; it is find a synthesis-worthy topic → get on the Editorial Committee's commission list → read the whole literature → impose an organizing framework → cover it even-handedly → land the ARPsych voice → handle production → revise.

Default assumption: unless the user says otherwise, treat the target as ARPsych and the artefact as an invited review, not a primary-research paper. Operational tells that you are at ARPsych and not a sibling: the work reviews other people's findings rather than reporting its own studies; unsolicited manuscripts are not accepted — the Editorial Committee plans each volume and invites authors (you may suggest a topic, but you cannot self-submit a finished paper) (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准); there is no study of your own to power or preregister (you appraise the studies you cover); the contribution is an analytical map of a literature, not a new effect. If the user has original data, they want a primary outlet (a Psychological Science, a JPSP, a specialty journal) — say so. If they have a stand-alone meta-analysis or a self-submitted review, that is Psychological Bulletin, not ARPsych.

When to trigger

• The user asks "what should I do next?" on an invited review
• A review draft reads like an annotated bibliography and needs a spine
• Work is ping-ponging between coverage, framing, balance, and the invitation
• An ARPsych production/peer-review letter arrived and the user needs to switch into revision mode

Routing table

Default order

1. arpsych-topic-selection — confirm the topic is ARPsych-scale (mature, important, needs synthesis)
2. arpsych-proposal-and-commissioning — get the topic to the Committee / shape the accepted invitation
3. arpsych-literature-synthesis — gather and read the literature systematically
4. arpsych-organizing-framework — impose the analytical spine
5. arpsych-comprehensiveness-and-balance — even-handed coverage across labs and paradigms
6. arpsych-tables-figures — summary tables and the conceptual figure
7. arpsych-writing-style — the authoritative-yet-accessible ARPsych voice (abstract + intro last)
8. arpsych-transparency-and-reproducibility — document the search; make any meta-analysis reproducible
9. arpsych-editor-strategy — scope and the Editor/production relationship
10. arpsych-submission — Annual Reviews delivery preflight
11. arpsych-revision — after the editor/peer-review letter

arpsych-writing-style is a late-stage polish; do not rewrite the intro before the framework and balance settle. The invitation comes early — ARPsych is commissioning-first, so arpsych-proposal-and-commissioning precedes the heavy reading and an agreed length lands before drafting.

Anti-patterns

• Treating ARPsych as a journal you submit to cold — it is invitation-driven; unsolicited manuscripts are not accepted (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准)
• Treating the review as an annotated bibliography (no framework) — the cardinal review-article failure
• Centering the review on the author's own lab and citing oneself disproportionately (self-promotion)
• Importing primary-research instincts: there is no "preregistration" or "power analysis" of your own — you appraise others' designs
• Confusing ARPsych with Psychological Bulletin (submitted reviews/meta-analyses), Annual Review of Clinical Psychology (the clinical sister), or Perspectives on Psychological Science (shorter, opinionated essays)

Routing by review archetype

A "review" is not one thing; the bottleneck differs by type. Read the archetype, then enter the chain at the right link.

Minimal decision snippet

if editor_or_review_letter:            -> arpsych-revision
elif ready_to_deliver_draft:           -> arpsych-submission
elif scope_or_timeline_with_editor:    -> arpsych-editor-strategy
elif meta_analysis_or_search_to_doc:   -> arpsych-transparency-and-reproducibility
elif prose_dense_or_inaccessible:      -> arpsych-writing-style
elif need_tables_or_figures:           -> arpsych-tables-figures
elif coverage_lopsided_or_selfpromo:   -> arpsych-comprehensiveness-and-balance
elif reads_like_a_list:                -> arpsych-organizing-framework
elif reading_unsystematic:             -> arpsych-literature-synthesis
elif no_invitation_yet:                -> arpsych-proposal-and-commissioning
else:                                  -> arpsych-topic-selection