| name | ppsych-proposal-and-commissioning |
| description | Use when shaping a proposal for a Perspectives on Psychological Science (PoPS) contribution — the proposal route (required for cooperative and miscellaneous pieces, optional for stand-alone), what a proposal contains, and how invited/special-issue work differs. Frames the pitch; it does not gather the literature (ppsych-literature-synthesis) or run the submission preflight (ppsych-submission). |
Proposal & Commissioning (ppsych-proposal-and-commissioning)
When to trigger
- The topic passed
ppsych-topic-selection and you are deciding whether to send a proposal first
- You are planning a special issue, adversarial collaboration, or multilab effort (cooperative — proposal required)
- You are planning a biography, book review, or humor/opinion essay (miscellaneous — proposal required)
- You want an editor's early read on a stand-alone integrative or theoretical idea before investing months
How PoPS intake actually works (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准)
PoPS mixes submitted and invited/cooperative work, and the proposal rules differ by category — get this right or you waste effort:
- Stand-alone articles (integrative reviews, theoretical statements, methodology/meta-science, brief reports, diversity documentation): a proposal is optional. You may submit the full manuscript cold, or send a short proposal to gauge editor interest first (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).
- Cooperative contributions (special issues, adversarial collaborations, multilab efforts): a proposal is required — these are coordinated, multi-author efforts the editors must approve before assembly (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).
- Miscellaneous (biographies, book reviews, humor/opinion essays): a proposal is required (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).
- Crucial caveat: a positive editor reaction to a proposal is not an invitation or acceptance. Every manuscript — solicited or not — goes through the same review process (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). A proposal de-risks scope and fit; it does not pre-clear the paper.
The controllable move for a stand-alone piece is a short proposal that reads like the editor's own reasoning: here is a question the whole field needs reframed, here is the synthesis or argument I will impose, here is why it is provocative and timely, and here is why I can do it fairly. For cooperative work, the proposal must also show the coordination plan (contributors, balance of viewpoints, timeline).
Anatomy of a PoPS proposal
| Element | What it must do | Note |
|---|
| The claim & animating question | State the superordinate message (from ppsych-topic-selection) | the argument, not a topic label |
| Why a synthesis/argument is needed now | New evidence / method shift / reform debate; the cross-area payoff | concrete, not "under-reviewed" |
| The organizing spine | The framework or taxonomy you will impose — not a section list | the contribution lives here |
| Coverage signal | The main research lines / sub-areas you will integrate | breadth evidence |
| Provisional take-home | Your read of what the field should conclude + the open agenda | the payoff |
| Standing & balance | Why you can write it fairly, and how you handle your own work | 2–3 sentences |
| (Cooperative only) Coordination plan | Contributors, viewpoint balance, special-issue/collaboration timeline | required for special issues |
Adversarial collaborations & special issues
PoPS has been a home for adversarial collaborations (rival camps designing a fair test together) and themed special issues. These are cooperative contributions: the proposal must name the parties, the disputed question, the agreed evidentiary standard, and the plan for an even-handed write-up. The editor approves the structure; the resulting manuscript is still refereed.
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- Submitting a cooperative/special-issue or miscellaneous piece with no proposal (it is required)
- Reading a warm proposal reply as an acceptance — every manuscript is reviewed identically
- A proposal that is a topic outline ("Section 3 will cover X") with no analytical spine
- A coverage list that is a literature dump rather than a curated, integratable corpus
- Promising "comprehensive coverage" with no statement of what the piece will conclude
- An adversarial-collaboration proposal that does not pre-commit both camps to a fair evidentiary standard
Output format
【Category】stand-alone / cooperative / miscellaneous
【Proposal required?】Y/N (cooperative + miscellaneous = required)
【Claim & question】<one sentence superordinate message>
【Why now】<new evidence / method shift / reform debate>
【Proposed spine】<the organizing framework in 2–3 sentences>
【Coverage signal】<sub-areas / research lines to integrate>
【Provisional take-home + agenda】<what the piece will argue>
【Coordination plan】(cooperative only) contributors / balance / timeline
【Balance note】<how the author's own work is handled>
【Source status】proposal process re-confirmed on PoPS page? Y/N · 待核实
【Next step】→ ppsych-literature-synthesis (begin systematic cross-area reading)
