JPSP is long-format, but the introduction and discussion are capped by section, so the craft is disciplined length: a rich, theory-driven narrative that still respects the word budget. This is the opposite of a 2,000-word short report — here you must develop a theory and several studies, yet write tightly enough to fit ASC's 3,500-word or IRGP's 5,000-word intro+discussion limit.
| Section | Intro + discussion cap | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| ASC | introduction + study intros + Discussion + General Discussion ≤ 3,500 words | |
| IRGP | introduction + discussion ≤ 5,000 words total; ≤ 5 studies in main text | results accessible to general statistical readers |
| PPID | "as succinctly as possible" — no fixed cap stated | 待核实 |
| All | abstract ≤ 250 words | a ≤200-word limitations statement may follow the abstract (待核实) |
Tables/figures are embedded and not counted toward the word limit — use exhibits to carry detail.
The craft at JPSP is allocating a fixed intro+discussion budget across a multi-study narrative. The percentages below are illustrative planning anchors, not journal rules — the only binding figures are the section caps, which you must confirm against the journal's current submission guidelines.
| Manuscript element | Illustrative share of the capped words | What earns the space at JPSP |
|---|---|---|
| Opening contribution statement | ~10% | The theoretical advance, stated on page one |
| Literature/theory setup | ~30% | The gap and the diagnostic hypotheses, not a survey |
| Brief study-to-study transitions | ~15% | "Study 1 established…; Study 2 asks whether…" through-line |
| General Discussion | ~35% | Interpretation, the internal meta-analysis takeaway, scope |
| Limitations statement | ~10% (if required) | Internal/construct/statistical/external validity, for nonspecialists |
Method and complex statistics are not in this budget: push them to embedded tables, notes, and the supplement, which do not count toward the word limit.
Illustrative — invented to model structure, not a real abstract.
A four-sentence skeleton for the gratitude→construal package, fitting comfortably under the 250-word abstract cap: (1) Question — "Does incidental gratitude broaden how abstractly people construe events?" (2) Approach, flagged as multi-study — "Across four preregistered studies (total N = 1,420), we manipulated gratitude and measured construal level." (3) Key finding with direction and magnitude — "Gratitude reliably raised abstract construal (internal meta-analytic d = 0.31, 95% CI [0.18, 0.45]); the effect attenuated under time pressure." (4) Contribution — "These findings identify gratitude as an antecedent of construal and connect emotion to social-cognitive abstraction." Note the multi-study signal in sentence 2 and the pooled effect in sentence 3 — both are what an ASC reviewer scans the abstract for.
【Section cap】ASC 3,500 / IRGP 5,000 / PPID succinct — intro+discussion within it? [Y/N]
【Abstract】word count (≤250) — question + multi-study approach + finding + contribution
【Limitations statement】present + within cap? (待核实)
【Through-line】studies read as one argument? [Y/N]
【APA 7th】citations, headings, bias-free language? [Y/N]
【Next】jpsp-open-science-and-transparency
../../resources/external_tools.md — papaja / apa7 LaTeX, reference managers, APA 7th formatting../../resources/official-source-map.md — per-section word caps and abstract rule