Tables & Figures — Exhibits That Carry the Spine (arpsych-tables-figures)

When to trigger

• The framework is set and you need exhibits that show it, not decorate the text
• A who-found-what summary table would save pages of prose
• The review needs one figure a reader can screenshot and remember
• A meta-analytic result needs a forest plot or effect-summary display

Exhibits in a review do different work than in a primary paper

A primary paper's figures report results; a review's exhibits organize a literature. ARPsych readers and teachers reproduce the good ones in slides for years. Two exhibit types carry most of the load:

1. The conceptual framework figure (the signature exhibit)

One diagram that makes the spine visible — the taxonomy, the process model, the levels-of-analysis stack, the theory contest. It is the review's logo. Tests:

• A reader who sees only this figure grasps the review's argument about the field.
• Every box/arrow maps to a section; nothing in the figure is unexplained in text and vice versa.
• It is self-contained — caption defines all terms; no jargon a non-specialist can't parse.
• It is generative: empty regions read as open questions, not blank space.

2. The synthesis table (who found what)

A structured table that compresses the evidence matrix into reader-facing form — typically rows = studies/constructs, columns = population, design, key finding, replication status. This is how a review honors comprehensiveness without narrating every study: the table holds the coverage, the prose discusses the cell-defining work.

Production constraints (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准)

Annual Reviews copyedits to house format at production and re-renders figures; deliver editable source and high-resolution files, and secure permission for any reproduced/adapted exhibit (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). Color is used in the online/OA version; ensure figures remain legible if printed grayscale. Confirm exact figure specs on the author pages.

Checklist

• One conceptual framework figure that makes the spine visible
• A reader seeing only that figure can state the review's argument
• Every figure element maps to a section (and vice versa)
• Synthesis table compresses the evidence matrix; has a column that adjudicates (e.g., replication status)
• Any forest/effect plot is paired with a documented search + heterogeneity note
• Captions are self-contained; terms defined; legible in grayscale
• Permissions secured for reproduced/adapted exhibits
• Editable source + high-res files prepared; figure specs re-checked on author pages

Anti-patterns

• A decorative framework figure that does not match the actual section structure
• A synthesis table with no adjudicating column (just a list, not a comparison)
• A forest plot with no stated search/inclusion protocol (uninterpretable, fails transparency)
• Figures that need the body text to be understood (not self-contained)
• Reproducing a copyrighted figure without permission
• Cramming the whole literature into one unreadable mega-table

Output format

【Framework figure】present? makes the spine visible? Y/N
【Synthesis table】compresses matrix; has an adjudicating column? Y/N
【Quant exhibit】forest/effect plot tied to documented search? (N/A if none)
【Self-containment】captions define terms; grayscale-legible? Y/N
【Permissions】reproduced exhibits cleared? Y/N
【Production】editable source + high-res; specs re-checked? Y/N
【Next step】→ arpsych-writing-style (write the prose around these exhibits)