Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› arpsych-editor-strategy
arpsych-editor-strategy
GitHub管理ARPsych投稿的编辑关系，处理范围、篇幅、截止日期及生产流程。适用于接受邀请后与编辑沟通里程碑、应对延期或范围争议、确认生产时间线及权限事宜，确保稿件符合年度卷要求。
触发场景
接受邀请后需与编辑协商范围、篇幅和里程碑
草稿超出指定长度或临近截止日期
编辑或委员会询问范围重叠或平衡性问题
需要在交付前了解Annual Reviews的生产时间线
安装
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill arpsych-editor-strategy -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "arpsych-editor-strategy",
"description": "Use when managing scope, length, deadlines, and the production relationship with the Annual Review of Psychology (ARPsych) Editor and Annual Reviews production team. Handles the editorial\/production process; it does not get the initial invitation (arpsych-proposal-and-commissioning) or run the final file preflight (arpsych-submission)."
}
Editor Strategy — Working the Production Relationship (arpsych-editor-strategy)
When to trigger
- An invitation is accepted and you must manage scope, length, and milestones with the Editor
- The draft is drifting over the assigned length or past the due date
- The Editor or a Committee member has questions about scope or overlap with another review
- You need to understand the Annual Reviews production timeline before delivery
Who you are working with (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准)
ARPsych is run by its Editors (Susan T. Fiske since 2000, co-editing with Daniel L. Schacter for the 2026 volume; web-verified 2026-06-22, re-verify before relying) plus an Editorial Committee of associate editors and rotating members, supported by Annual Reviews production staff (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). Unlike a normal journal, the editorial relationship begins at invitation and runs through commissioning, scope-setting, peer review, and production. The Editor cares about three things you can manage proactively: scope fit within the volume, balance/accuracy (see arpsych-comprehensiveness-and-balance), and hitting length and deadline.
The levers you control
| Lever | How to manage it |
|---|---|
| Assigned length | It is in the invitation and includes figures/tables; keep to it. If the topic truly needs more, negotiate early, not at delivery (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准) |
| Due date | Annual volumes are scheduled; a late review can slip a whole year. Calendar backward from the production deadline |
| Scope boundary | Confirm with the Editor what neighboring commissioned reviews cover, to avoid overlap or gaps |
| Balance concerns | If the topic is contested, signal early how you will cover rival camps even-handedly |
| Figures/permissions | Flag any reproduced exhibits needing permission well before the deadline |
The production timeline (plan backward from it)
After delivery, the Annual Reviews process runs: Committee/peer review for accuracy, rigor, and balance → revision → copyediting to house style → proofs → publication in the annual volume (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). Implications:
- The delivered draft does not need to pre-conform to house reference style (production copyedits), but references must be complete and accurate.
- Build in time for proof checking, especially of figures Annual Reviews re-renders.
- ARPsych also offers early online publication ahead of the bound volume for many articles (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准) — confirm current practice on the author pages.
Communicating with the Editor
- Raise scope/length/permission issues early and in writing; surprises at delivery are the friction point.
- If you discover the topic is bigger than the assigned length, propose a narrowed organizing question rather than asking to double the length.
- Keep the Editor informed if a co-author drops or a deadline is at risk — annual scheduling leaves little slack.
Checklist
- Assigned length confirmed and the draft is tracking to it (figures/tables included)
- Due date calendared backward from the production deadline
- Scope boundary with neighboring commissioned reviews confirmed with the Editor
- Balance approach for any contested area signaled to the Editor early
- Reproduced-figure permissions flagged well ahead of delivery
- References complete and accurate (house style applied at production, not by you)
- Time reserved for peer-review revision and proof checking
- Early-online vs. volume publication practice re-checked on author pages
Anti-patterns
- Going silent until delivery, then revealing the draft is 50% over length
- Treating the due date as soft — a slip can cost a full annual cycle
- Pre-formatting to house reference style instead of ensuring reference accuracy
- Discovering a permissions problem at the proof stage
- Asking to expand length late instead of narrowing the organizing question
- Ignoring scope overlap with a sibling commissioned review in the same volume
Output format
【Length】assigned limit + on-track? (figures/tables included) Y/N
【Deadline】due date calendared from production deadline? Y/N
【Scope boundary】overlap with neighboring reviews confirmed? Y/N
【Balance signal】contested-area plan shared with Editor? Y/N | N/A
【Permissions】reproduced-figure clearances flagged early? Y/N
【Timeline】peer-review + proof time reserved? Y/N
【Next step】→ arpsych-submission (final delivery preflight)
版本历史
- 1839142 当前 2026-07-05 12:24
