Proposal & Commissioning — Getting Invited (arpsych-proposal-and-commissioning)

When to trigger

• The user has an ARPsych-worthy topic but no invitation yet
• An invitation letter arrived and the scope/length/deadline need to be pinned down
• The user wants to suggest a topic or an author to the Editorial Committee
• A co-author lineup and division of labor must be settled before the heavy reading begins

How ARPsych commissioning actually works (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准)

ARPsych is commissioning-first. The flow is the opposite of a normal journal:

1. The Editorial Committee (an Editor — Susan T. Fiske since 2000 — plus associate editors and rotating members appointed by the Annual Reviews board) plans each annual volume, deciding which topics the field needs covered (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).
2. The Committee identifies and invites qualified authors based on scholarly reputation and publication record. Unsolicited manuscripts are not accepted (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).
3. You may suggest a topic (and yourself or others as author) for the Committee's consideration through the official channels, but suggestion ≠ acceptance — the Committee curates the volume (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).
4. The invitation letter specifies the assigned length and the due date; treat both as binding (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).

So "submitting to ARPsych" means earning an invitation, then delivering to spec. Plan accordingly: the time to influence the topic is before a draft exists.

Two situations, two playbooks

A) No invitation yet — suggesting a topic

• Frame the topic as a gap in the volume's coverage, not "my work deserves a review." The Committee thinks in terms of what the field is missing.
• Name the organizing question (from arpsych-topic-selection), why now (maturity), and why ARPsych's broad readership needs it.
• Propose author(s) with the standing and balance to cover the area even-handedly — including, ideally, people not identified with one camp.
• Use official suggestion channels; do not send a finished manuscript (it cannot be accepted cold).

B) Invitation in hand — locking the contract

• Confirm assigned length and due date in writing; ARPsych asks authors to keep to the assigned length, which includes figures and tables (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).
• Negotiate scope explicitly: what is in, what is out, where the boundary sits with neighboring commissioned reviews.
• Agree the author order and contributions up front; a multi-author review needs one voice (see arpsych-writing-style).
• Calendar the production milestones early (see arpsych-editor-strategy).

Checklist

• Clear on which situation applies (suggesting vs. invited)
• Organizing question and "why now / why ARPsych readers" are one paragraph each
• If suggesting: framed as a coverage gap; author lineup is balanced, not partisan
• If invited: assigned length and due date confirmed in writing
• Scope boundary agreed with the Editor (in/out; overlap with sibling commissions)
• Author order and contribution split settled before reading starts
• No finished manuscript sent as a cold submission

Anti-patterns

• Sending a complete manuscript unsolicited — it cannot enter the pipeline (invitation-only)
• Pitching "a review of my contributions" rather than a field the volume is missing
• Ignoring the assigned length in the invitation and over-running by 50%
• Proposing a single-camp author team for a contested topic (balance is editorial currency)
• Starting the literature read before scope and length are agreed (wasted breadth)
• Treating a topic suggestion as an acceptance and drafting prematurely

Output format

【Situation】suggesting-topic | invitation-in-hand
【Organizing question】"<one question>"
【Why now / why ARPsych readers】<two sentences>
【If suggesting】coverage gap + balanced author lineup
【If invited】assigned length + due date (confirmed?) + scope boundary
【Author roles】order + contribution split
【Next step】→ arpsych-literature-synthesis (read the field systematically)