Understanding the Review Process (psychrev-review-process)

When to trigger

• Before submitting, to understand what you are walking into
• A decision letter has arrived and you must read it correctly before responding
• You are unsure whether your piece is a full article or a Theoretical Note
• You want to anticipate the theory-specific objections reviewers will raise

How Psychological Review is reviewed

• Masked (anonymous) peer review. Manuscripts are fully anonymized so the body carries no author-identifying content; the title page (authors, affiliations, ORCID, contact) is separate. (Verify current masking policy on the author page; 检索于 2026-06；以官网为准.)
• Handled through Editorial Manager (editorialmanager.com/rev, 检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).
• Reviewers are drawn from the modeling/theory tradition you enter — typically proponents or critics of the rival models you must beat. Positioning honestly (psychrev-literature-positioning) matters precisely because the rivals' authors may review you.
• The editor (currently Elena L. Grigorenko, PhD, editor since 2022; web-verified 2026-06-22, re-verify before relying) makes the call, weighing whether the theoretical contribution is genuine and general.

Article types (confirm current list on the author page)

• Theoretical articles — the main vehicle: a new theory/model, a formal account, or a major synthesis that yields new theory. No upper length bound, but texts over 15,000 words must be justified (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).
• Theoretical Notes — shorter commentaries that advance a subfield: critiques of a theoretical approach, discussions of published work, or meta-theoretical argument. Pick this type when your contribution is a focused theoretical point, not a full new model.
• Replications are publishable only when relevant to / embedded in new or enhanced theory, and should be mentioned in the abstract (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).

What reviewers at a theory journal actually probe

Decision types (typical scholarly-journal ladder; confirm specifics)

• Reject (often desk-level for empirical papers or insufficient theoretical advance)
• Major revision — the common "promising" outcome; the bar rises across rounds
• Minor revision — rare on a first decision for a theory paper
• Accept — usually only after one or more revision rounds

Multiple rounds are normal at a theory journal; treat a major revision as an invitation to strengthen the theory itself, not merely to answer comments.

Checklist

• Manuscript fully anonymized for masked review; separate title page prepared
• Correct article type chosen (full theoretical article vs. Theoretical Note)
• Anticipated reviewer objections mapped to the skill that should have addressed them
• If computational: model code prepared for sharing (see psychrev-submission)
• Decision letter (if any) read for the theoretical asks, not just surface edits

Anti-patterns

• Assuming a single round; the bar rises as the theory is pushed harder
• Treating reviewers as outsiders — they are often the rival modelers themselves
• Choosing a full article when the contribution is really a Theoretical Note (or vice versa)
• Reading a major revision as a list of edits rather than a mandate to strengthen the theory
• Leaving identifiability or rival-mimicry unaddressed and hoping reviewers miss it

Output format

【Review model】masked; Editorial Manager; reviewers from the rival tradition
【Article type】theoretical article | Theoretical Note (+ length justification if > limit)
【Anticipated objections】[objection → skill that addresses it] (table)
【Decision read】[if letter present: the theoretical asks beneath the comments]
【Next step】psychrev-submission (preflight) or psychrev-rebuttal (after a revise decision)