| name | arpsych-proposal-and-commissioning |
| description | Use when getting a topic in front of the Annual Review of Psychology (ARPsych) Editorial Committee, suggesting a topic/author, or shaping an accepted invitation into an agreed scope. Handles the commissioning relationship; it does not test topic maturity (arpsych-topic-selection) or read the literature (arpsych-literature-synthesis). |
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:
- 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).
- 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).
- 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).
- 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
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)
