JPSP rewards a theoretical contribution, not just a clean effect. Before anything else you must make two decisions: (1) is the contribution big enough for JPSP's long-format, multi-study standard, and (2) which of the three sections is it for. Picking the wrong section is a common, avoidable cause of a desk re-route or rejection — each section is edited separately.
| Section | Core remit | Signals it's the right home |
|---|---|---|
| ASC — Attitudes and Social Cognition | Attitudes, persuasion, social cognition, attribution, stereotyping, emotion/motivation in social contexts | The contribution is about how people think, evaluate, and feel in social contexts |
| IRGP — Interpersonal Relations and Group Processes | Dyads, close relationships, intragroup and intergroup processes, group behavior | The unit is a relationship or group, not a lone perceiver |
| PPID — Personality Processes and Individual Differences | Personality structure, development, assessment; trait processes; individual differences | The contribution is about who people are and how they differ, not a manipulated social state |
Borderline cases (e.g., self-regulation, identity, culture) can fit more than one section. Decide by the theoretical question the paper answers, name the section in the cover letter, and confirm the live per-section remit (待核实 on exact wording).
The most common section-choice errors at JPSP. Decide by the theoretical question, name the section in the cover letter, and confirm live remits against the submission guidelines (待核实).
| If the paper is about… | Tempting wrong call | Decide by |
|---|---|---|
| Self-regulation | "personality → PPID" | A manipulated social state → ASC; a trait difference → PPID |
| Stigma / prejudice | "groups → IRGP" | The perceiver's cognition → ASC; intergroup process → IRGP |
| Identity / self | "individual → PPID" | A relational/group identity → IRGP; trait structure → PPID |
| Culture | "any of the three" | Route by the process, not the moderator |
A correct route is itself a fit signal: it tells the editor you understand the remit. A mis-route risks a return.
Treat this skill as an executable review pass, not a prose hint. First lock the construct validity, study sequence, power/robustness plan, and boundary conditions; then judge whether the current manuscript answers the venue's real reader: psychology reviewers who need a theoretical construct, validated measurement, and cumulative-study logic.
claim / evidence / risk / manuscript location rows, so the next agent can edit rather than rediscover the issue.resources/official-source-map.md has been checked for volatile rules and the manuscript has one concrete fix for the largest venue-specific risk.【Section】ASC / IRGP / PPID + one-line justification by theoretical question
【Contribution type】new theory / new mechanism / reconciliation / new construct / …
【Multi-study plausible】Y/N — sketch of the study set
【JPSP-scale?】Y/N — if N, where instead
【Next】jpsp-literature-positioning
../../resources/external_tools.md — data sources by section/design../../resources/official-source-map.md — official per-section remits and rules