Contribution Framing (psychrev-contribution-framing)
When to trigger
- The theory is built, derived, and bounded; now you must say why it matters
- You can describe what your model is but not what is new about it
- A reviewer will ask "how is this an advance over [the standing model]?"
- The contribution reads as "we propose a model of X" with no before → after
The two questions every Review reviewer asks
-
What can the field explain after this paper that it could not before? Stated as a
concrete before → after against a named prior model — not against "the literature."
-
Why could the prior models not get there? Identify the specific commitment or omission
in the rival that your theory replaces or adds. "More accurate fit" is rarely enough; the
advance should be a mechanism or unification, not a better-tuned curve.
Sizing the contribution (be honest about which you have)
| Contribution type |
What it claims |
Strength at Review |
| New mechanism |
A previously unexplained phenomenon now follows from a stated process |
Strong |
| Unification |
Phenomena treated by separate theories follow from one model |
Strong |
| Adjudication |
Settles a standing dispute between rival theories |
Strong |
| Formalization |
Makes a verbal theory precise and thereby newly predictive |
Strong if it yields novel predictions |
| Generalization |
Extends a model to a new domain it could not reach |
Moderate — must be non-trivial |
| Re-parameterization |
Same model, better fit |
Weak — usually not a Review contribution |
| Relabeling |
New name for an existing construct/mechanism |
None — desk-reject signal |
Differentiation discipline
- State the contribution as "before this paper, theory could not X; after it, theory can X,"
naming the prior model displaced or extended.
- Show the advance is not (a) a relabel, (b) a mere better fit, or (c) an accommodation of
data the model was built on — each is a known reviewer objection at this journal.
- Tie the contribution to the diagnostic phenomena and novel predictions from
psychrev-argument-development: the advance is credible only if the model gets the diagnostic
cases right and risks a falsifiable new one.
- Where you formalize a verbal theory, the contribution is the new predictions the
formalization yields, not the formalization itself.
Generality, the journal's premium
Review pays for generality. The strongest contribution framing shows the mechanism reaches
beyond the originating paradigm — "the same mechanism predicts patterns in [adjacent domain]."
Claim only the generality the derivations support (per psychrev-boundary-conditions); overclaimed
generality is as damaging as undersized contribution.
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- "We propose a model of X" with no before → after and no named rival
- Claiming an advance that is a better fit of the same mechanism
- Relabeling an existing construct and presenting it as new theory
- Differentiating from "the literature" instead of a specific model
- Overclaiming generality the scope analysis does not support
- Letting the contribution rest on accommodated data rather than novel prediction
Output format
【Before → after】before this paper, theory could not [...]; after it, theory can [...]
【Named rival displaced/extended】[model] — the commitment/omission replaced: [...]
【Contribution type】mechanism | unification | adjudication | formalization | generalization
【Not a relabel/refit】evidence: tied to diagnostic phenomena + novel prediction [...]
【Generality】[reach beyond originating paradigm, within stated scope]
【Next step】psychrev-review-process (understand masked review) → psychrev-submission
