Tables & Figures for a PoPS Piece (ppsych-tables-figures)

When to trigger

• The synthesis is done and a cross-area reader needs to see the field at a glance
• A controversy or a body of effects would be clearer as a table than as prose
• The organizing framework would land better as a diagram (often the signature exhibit)
• For meta-science: prevalence of a practice, or a replication landscape, needs a figure
• You are tempted to paste an experiment's result table — but this is a perspective, not a primary paper

The exhibit types a PoPS piece actually uses

PoPS exhibits summarize or conceptualize across the literature; they do not present the author's own experiment. The workhorses:

Building a credible summary table

• Compare like with like. Group studies that measure the same construct; never put non-comparable constructs in one magnitude column.
• Carry uncertainty and credibility. A finding column without effect sizes / CIs and a credibility note invites "but how good is that study?" — answer it in the table.
• Self-contained APA captions. A PoPS exhibit is read on its own by an outsider; the note states what the table shows, the unit, how to read a row, and the source studies (APA table/figure conventions).
• Source every cell. Each entry traces to a paper in the evidence matrix; an unsourced number in a field-shaping piece is indefensible.

The conceptual figure is PoPS's signature

Because the readership is cross-area, the framework figure carries disproportionate weight: it is what a psychologist from another area remembers and reuses. Invest in one diagram that renders the spine cleanly — a taxonomy tree, a theory flow, or the reframe — so a reader who recalls nothing else can reconstruct the argument. Design for legibility in the published format and confirm current figure specs and color policy on the author pages (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).

Meta-science exhibits: show the practice, not a vibe

A reform argument lands when the reader sees the prevalence:

• A bar/trend of preregistration, open-data, or replication rates over time makes "the field is changing" concrete.
• A funnel plot or p-curve makes a publication-bias claim auditable rather than rhetorical.
• Every such exhibit must come from the documented, reproducible coding in ppsych-literature-synthesis — a prevalence figure with an undisclosed sampling frame is the very opacity reform opposes. Note the sampling frame and coding rules in the caption, and deposit the data/code (see ppsych-transparency-and-reproducibility).

Reproduced vs. re-drawn figures

When a figure from a reviewed paper is central, prefer a re-drawn synthesis figure (your own panel placing several studies on common axes) over copying one paper's exhibit — it serves the argument and avoids consensus-by-accident. If you reproduce an original figure, attribute it and secure any permission SAGE requires (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).

Checklist

• Each exhibit synthesizes/conceptualizes across studies (no original-experiment result output)
• Summary-table rows ordered by framework cells; only comparable constructs share a column
• Finding columns carry effect sizes/CIs and a credibility note, not bare claims
• The conceptual figure renders the spine and is restate-able from memory by a non-specialist
• Any meta-science/forest exhibit pools only commensurable estimates; sampling frame disclosed
• Captions/notes are self-contained and APA-styled (what / unit / how to read / sources)
• Every cell sources to a paper in the evidence matrix; meta-science data/code depositable
• Figure specs / color policy / permissions confirmed against current SAGE author pages (volatile)

Anti-patterns

• Pasting a regression/ANOVA table of the author's own new study — a perspective reports no new results
• A who-found-what table that pools incomparable constructs into one magnitude column
• A prevalence figure or forest plot with an undisclosed, unreproducible sampling frame
• Finding columns with no effect size or credibility note
• A decorative figure that does not encode the framework — wasting the signature exhibit
• Exhibits whose captions need the body text to be intelligible (fails the cross-area reader)

Output format

【Exhibit set】<list: conceptual figure / summary tables / prevalence / forest>
【Conceptual figure】renders the spine; restate-able from memory? Y/N
【Summary table】rows by framework cell; comparable constructs only; effect sizes + credibility? Y/N
【Meta-science exhibit】sampling frame disclosed; coding reproducible? Y/N · N/A
【Forest plot】pools only commensurable estimates (or omitted)? Y/N · N/A
【Sourcing】every cell traces to the evidence matrix? Y/N
【APA/specs/permissions】captions APA; specs + permissions confirmed on SAGE pages? Y/N · 待核实
【Next step】→ ppsych-writing-style (weave exhibits into the synthesis prose)