Literature Positioning (devpsych-literature-positioning)

Developmental Psychology expects an Introduction that names a developmental gap — what is unresolved about change, age, or mechanism — and states the contribution to theory about development, not just to a topic. Positioning is where many submissions are judged "interesting but not developmental"; this skill makes the developmental stakes legible.

When to trigger

• Drafting or tightening the Introduction
• A reviewer said the contribution is "incremental," "not clearly developmental," or "already known"
• Connecting a specific age/trajectory finding to a broad developmental question
• Deciding which developmental literatures (and which sibling-journal work) to cite

How to position a developmental contribution

1. Open with the developmental question and its stakes, not a topic history. Why does the change (or its mechanism) matter for theories of development?
2. Name the developmental gap precisely. Is the unknown about whether an effect changes with age, how it changes (shape, timing, sensitive period), for whom (moderators), or why (mechanism)? Avoid "little is known about development of X."
3. State the contribution early. By the end of a tight Introduction the reader knows the developmental claim, the design that supports it, and what is new (first within-person test, a trajectory shape, a boundary age, a mechanism).
4. Cite the developmental conversation, not everything. Anchor on the works that define the developmental question and the closest prior longitudinal/age-comparative studies.
5. Distinguish the venue. Position relative to work in Developmental Psychology and its siblings; show why this is a broad lifespan-development advance.

Developmental-gap typology (pick the kind of gap you fill)

Worked micro-example (illustrative)

A longitudinal self-regulation package wants to position against a large but mostly cross-sectional effortful-control literature. Weak framing: "Prior work has studied effortful control (refs 1–25)." Venue-fit framing:

Stakes:   Effortful control is a load-bearing construct in developmental
          theories of adjustment, but its within-person growth is under-tested.
Gap (Form + Mechanism): Most evidence is cross-sectional; how effortful
          control grows across early childhood, and whether parenting
          steepens that growth, is unresolved.
Contribution (by paragraph two): A three-wave latent-growth test (ages 4-8)
          estimates the trajectory and tests scaffolding as a driver of slope.
Distinction: Broad developmental-theory advance (life-span change + mechanism),
          appropriate to this venue rather than a single-construct topical note.

Positioning-stage reviewer pushback and the venue fix

Anti-patterns

• A topic-by-topic literature tour with no developmental gap
• Positioning a cross-sectional age difference as if it settled a change question
• Burying the contribution after pages of background
• "First to show" claims for an incremental, single-age effect
• Citing exhaustively to seem thorough instead of anchoring the developmental conversation

Output format

【Developmental question + stakes】why the change/mechanism matters for theory
【Gap kind】existence / form / population / mechanism / generality
【Contribution】stated early? what is new about the developmental claim
【Anchor citations】defining works + closest longitudinal/age-comparative priors
【Venue distinction】why Developmental Psychology, not a sibling
【Next】devpsych-study-design

Supplementary resources

• ../../resources/exemplars/library.md — verified Developmental Psychology papers by method × developmental domain
• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — scope statement and sibling-journal boundaries