ppsych-topic-selection

name	ppsych-topic-selection
description	Use when judging whether a question is a Perspectives on Psychological Science (PoPS)-scale contribution — broad, integrative, theoretical, or meta-scientific rather than a single study — and framing its animating question. Decides fit and venue; it does not gather the literature (ppsych-literature-synthesis) or shape the proposal (ppsych-proposal-and-commissioning).

Topic Selection for a PoPS Contribution (ppsych-topic-selection)

When to trigger

• You have a candidate idea and need to know if it is "PoPS-shaped"
• A topic feels either too narrow (one study, one paradigm) or too sprawling (all of cognition)
• You are deciding between PoPS and a sibling (Psychological Science, Psychological Bulletin, Annual Review of Psychology, Current Directions)
• A meta-science idea exists but you are unsure whether it is a perspective or a primary methods paper

What PoPS is for

PoPS publishes an eclectic, broad, integrative mix: broad integrative reviews, overviews of research programs, theoretical and metatheoretical statements, methodology and meta-science commentary, philosophy-of-science pieces, opinion pieces on major issues, and even autobiographical or humorous essays (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). The reader is a psychologist (or adjacent behavioral/social/neuro/methods scientist) from any area who wants the big picture — not a specialist seeking a single result. That cross-area readership sets the fit bar.

The four PoPS-fit tests

A contribution belongs in PoPS when it passes all four. If it fails one, route accordingly.

1. Breadth / superordinate message. The take-home speaks across sub-areas or to the field as a whole — a theory, framework, or insight that travels. A point only one paradigm cares about is a specialist-journal point. (Fails → too narrow.)
2. Integration or argument, not new data. The contribution is a synthesis or an argument, not a single empirical test. Even a meta-analysis only fits PoPS if it carries a distinct superordinate theoretical/metatheoretical message beyond pooling effect sizes (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). (Fails → Psychological Science / Psychological Bulletin.)
3. Provocation / forward pull. PoPS prizes pieces that are provocative, agenda-setting, and likely to instigate lasting impact — they reframe, not just summarize. (Fails → a competent but inert review belongs in a subfield outlet.)
4. Tractable and concise. There is no strict page limit for stand-alone articles, but concise articles get more readership and impact; the scope must be writeable as one coherent argument (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). (Fails → carve a coherent axis.)

Decision table (venue)

Situation	Verdict	Action
Broad, integrative/theoretical/meta-science, provocative, coherent	PoPS-shaped	→ ppsych-proposal-and-commissioning
A single well-run empirical study	Wrong venue	Psychological Science (or a specialty journal)
A formal, comprehensive meta-analysis with no superordinate message	Wrong venue	Psychological Bulletin / a review journal
Invited, exhaustive subfield survey for specialists	Wrong venue	Annual Review of Psychology (invited)
A short, non-technical sketch of one finding for a broad audience	Wrong venue	Current Directions in Psychological Science
Cooperative (special issue / adversarial collaboration / multilab) or miscellaneous	PoPS, but proposal required	→ ppsych-proposal-and-commissioning

Framing the animating question

A PoPS piece is organized by a question or claim about the field, not by a topic label. Before going further, write one sentence of each:

• The claim / state-of-knowledge question: "What should the field now believe about X — and why is the current consensus incomplete?"
• Why now: new evidence, a methodological shift, a replication/reform debate, or a fracture/convergence across areas that makes synthesis valuable now.
• Reader payoff: what a psychologist from an adjacent area can do after reading (re-orient a program, adopt a framework, change a practice).

Checklist

• The contribution passes all four fit tests (breadth, integration/argument, provocation, concise/tractable)
• The animating claim or question about the field is written in one sentence
• The "why now" is concrete (new evidence / method shift / reform debate), not "no one has reviewed this"
• The intended reader is the cross-area psychologist, and the payoff is stated
• You can name the 3–6 research lines or sub-areas the piece must integrate
• Venue-checked against Psychological Science, Psychological Bulletin, Annual Review of Psychology, Current Directions
• A meta-analysis (if any) carries a distinct superordinate theoretical message — otherwise reroute
• You are not making the field's own program a self-retrospective

Anti-patterns

• "No one has written this" used as the sole justification — absence is not importance
• Dressing a single empirical study as a "perspective" — PoPS does not publish single studies (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准)
• Submitting a routine meta-analysis with no superordinate message (belongs in Psychological Bulletin)
• A scope so broad it is "all of psychology"; so narrow only one lab cares
• Confusing "topic" (a label) with "animating claim" (what the piece argues about the field)
• A competent-but-inert review with no provocation or forward agenda

Output format

【Contribution type】integrative review / theoretical statement / meta-science / cooperative / miscellaneous
【Four tests】breadth / integration-or-argument / provocation / concise-tractable — pass or fail each
【Animating claim】"The field should rethink ___ because ___"
【Why now】<new evidence / method shift / reform debate>
【Reader payoff】<what a cross-area psychologist can do after reading>
【Coverage skeleton】<3–6 sub-areas / research lines to integrate>
【Verdict】PoPS-shaped / rescope / wrong-venue (→ Psych Science / Psych Bulletin / ARP / Current Directions)
【Source status】verified URL / 待核实 / not asserted
【Next step】→ ppsych-proposal-and-commissioning (proposal route; required for cooperative/miscellaneous)