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.
| Current symptom | Next skill |
|---|---|
| Unsure the topic is mature/important enough to review for ARPsych | arpsych-topic-selection |
| Need to get a topic to the Editorial Committee / respond to an invitation | arpsych-proposal-and-commissioning |
| Reading is unsystematic; coverage gaps likely | arpsych-literature-synthesis |
| Draft is a list of studies, not an argument about the literature | arpsych-organizing-framework |
| Coverage feels lopsided, lab-centric, or self-promotional | arpsych-comprehensiveness-and-balance |
| Need a who-found-what table or a conceptual framework figure | arpsych-tables-figures |
| Prose is dense/jargon-laden; an adjacent psychologist can't follow | arpsych-writing-style |
| The review includes a meta-analysis or systematic search to document | arpsych-transparency-and-reproducibility |
| Working with the Editor / production editor on scope and timeline | arpsych-editor-strategy |
| Ready to deliver the commissioned draft; need a preflight | arpsych-submission |
| Received an editor/peer review on the delivered review | arpsych-revision |
arpsych-topic-selection — confirm the topic is ARPsych-scale (mature, important, needs synthesis)arpsych-proposal-and-commissioning — get the topic to the Committee / shape the accepted invitationarpsych-literature-synthesis — gather and read the literature systematicallyarpsych-organizing-framework — impose the analytical spinearpsych-comprehensiveness-and-balance — even-handed coverage across labs and paradigmsarpsych-tables-figures — summary tables and the conceptual figurearpsych-writing-style — the authoritative-yet-accessible ARPsych voice (abstract + intro last)arpsych-transparency-and-reproducibility — document the search; make any meta-analysis reproduciblearpsych-editor-strategy — scope and the Editor/production relationshiparpsych-submission — Annual Reviews delivery preflightarpsych-revision — after the editor/peer-review letter
arpsych-writing-styleis a late-stage polish; do not rewrite the intro before the framework and balance settle. The invitation comes early — ARPsych is commissioning-first, soarpsych-proposal-and-commissioningprecedes the heavy reading and an agreed length lands before drafting.
A "review" is not one thing; the bottleneck differs by type. Read the archetype, then enter the chain at the right link.
| Archetype | Likely first bottleneck | Enter at |
|---|---|---|
| field-defining synthesis (broad subfield) | scope is enormous; needs a taxonomy | arpsych-organizing-framework |
| construct/theory review (one idea across paradigms) | accessibility + balance across rival accounts | arpsych-comprehensiveness-and-balance |
| quantitative stocktake (meta-analysis embedded) | reproducible search + effect synthesis | arpsych-transparency-and-reproducibility |
| emerging-area review (young, fast-moving) | is it mature enough for an ARPsych volume yet? | arpsych-topic-selection |
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