ppsych-workflow

name	ppsych-workflow
description	Use when deciding which ppsych-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing a broad integrative review, theoretical statement, or meta-science piece from topic through revision for a Perspectives on Psychological Science (PoPS) manuscript. Routes by lifecycle stage and contribution type; it dispatches and does not draft content.

PoPS Workflow Router (ppsych-workflow)

Overview

This is the router. It tells you which ppsych- skill to use at the current stage* of a manuscript aimed at Perspectives on Psychological Science (PoPS) — the SAGE journal published in partnership with the Association for Psychological Science (APS), a bimonthly, broad, integrative outlet (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). PoPS does not publish single empirical studies (those go to Psychological Science) or routine meta-analyses (those go to specialized review journals). It publishes broad integrative reviews, overviews of research programs, theoretical and conceptual statements, methodology and meta-science commentary, and big-picture "perspective" pieces across all of psychology and adjacent behavioral, social, neuro, and methods fields (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). The contribution is a field-shaping synthesis or argument, not a new dataset.

So the lifecycle is not "design → run → estimate → defend." It is: find a synthesis- or argument-worthy question → decide whether a proposal is required → read across areas → impose an organizing framework → make the treatment comprehensive and balanced → model exemplary open science → manage the editor relationship → submit → revise. Default assumption unless the user says otherwise: the target is PoPS and the artefact is a broad integrative/theoretical/meta-science piece, not a primary-research paper.

When to trigger

• The user asks "what should I do next?" on a PoPS review, theoretical statement, or meta-science piece
• A draft reads like an annotated bibliography or a single-study report and needs a spine or a venue check
• Work is ping-ponging between coverage, framing, balance, open-science, and the proposal route
• A PoPS decision letter arrived and the user needs to switch into revision mode

First question: contribution type

Situation	Type	Route note
Broad cross-area synthesis / overview of a research program	Stand-alone integrative review	main pipeline; proposal optional
A unifying theoretical / conceptual / metatheoretical argument	Theoretical statement	ppsych-organizing-framework is the engine
Systematic evidence about the field's practices (replication, bias, methods)	Meta-science / methodology	ppsych-transparency-and-reproducibility early
Special issue, adversarial collaboration, multilab effort	Cooperative contribution	proposal required → ppsych-proposal-and-commissioning
Biography, book review, humor/opinion essay	Miscellaneous	proposal required → ppsych-proposal-and-commissioning
Single empirical study, or a routine meta-analysis	Out of scope	→ Psychological Science / a specialized review journal

A positive editor reaction to a proposal is not an invitation; all manuscripts go through the same review (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).

Routing table (symptom → next skill)

Current symptom	Next skill
Unsure the question is PoPS-shaped (broad, integrative, not a single study)	ppsych-topic-selection
Need a proposal (cooperative/miscellaneous) or want to test a stand-alone idea	ppsych-proposal-and-commissioning
Reading is unsystematic; cross-area coverage gaps likely	ppsych-literature-synthesis
Draft is a list of papers, not an argument about the field	ppsych-organizing-framework
Coverage, balance, or fairness across areas/camps in doubt	ppsych-comprehensiveness-and-balance
Need a framework figure or who-found-what / practice-prevalence table	ppsych-tables-figures
Prose dense or insular; a psychologist from another area can't follow	ppsych-writing-style
Open data/materials/code, preregistration of a meta-science protocol	ppsych-transparency-and-reproducibility
Working with the editor on scope / what referees will weigh	ppsych-editor-strategy
Ready to submit; need a preflight and reviewer suggestions	ppsych-submission
Received a PoPS decision letter	ppsych-revision

Default order

1. ppsych-topic-selection — confirm the question is broad, integrative, PoPS-scale
2. ppsych-proposal-and-commissioning — proposal route (required for cooperative/miscellaneous)
3. ppsych-literature-synthesis — read across areas systematically
4. ppsych-organizing-framework — impose the analytical/conceptual spine
5. ppsych-comprehensiveness-and-balance — fair, field-spanning, reform-minded but evidence-based
6. ppsych-tables-figures — framework figure + summary/prevalence exhibits
7. ppsych-writing-style — the PoPS voice (broad, provocative, accessible); abstract ≤ 200 words last
8. ppsych-transparency-and-reproducibility — exemplary open science (PoPS is a leader)
9. ppsych-editor-strategy — scope and the editor relationship
10. ppsych-submission — ScholarOne preflight + suggested reviewers
11. ppsych-revision — after the decision letter

ppsych-writing-style is a late polish — do not rewrite the intro before the framework and balance settle. For meta-science, pull ppsych-transparency-and-reproducibility forward: the systematic protocol is part of the design, not an afterthought.

Anti-patterns

• Treating PoPS like Psychological Science: it does not take single empirical studies or routine meta-analyses (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准)
• Submitting a cooperative or miscellaneous piece with no proposal, or reading a proposal's positive feedback as an acceptance
• The annotated-bibliography failure: a "review" with no organizing argument
• Letting the author's own program become the review's center of gravity (self-promotion)
• Confusing PoPS with Psychological Bulletin (formal meta-analyses), Annual Review of Psychology (invited subfield surveys), or Current Directions (short, non-technical) — PoPS is the APS broad integrative + meta-science flagship

Routing by archetype

Archetype	Likely first bottleneck	Enter at
field-defining integrative review	scope is enormous; needs a taxonomy	ppsych-organizing-framework
unifying theoretical statement	the argument itself, not coverage	ppsych-organizing-framework
meta-science / reform piece	systematic evidence + open protocol	ppsych-transparency-and-reproducibility
big-picture opinion / perspective	is it broad and defensible enough for PoPS?	ppsych-topic-selection

Minimal decision snippet

if decision_letter:                  -> ppsych-revision
elif ready_to_submit:                -> ppsych-submission
elif open_science_or_metascience:    -> ppsych-transparency-and-reproducibility
elif prose_dense_or_insular:         -> ppsych-writing-style
elif need_tables_or_figures:         -> ppsych-tables-figures
elif coverage_or_balance_in_doubt:   -> ppsych-comprehensiveness-and-balance
elif reads_like_a_list:              -> ppsych-organizing-framework
elif reading_unsystematic:           -> ppsych-literature-synthesis
elif needs_proposal_or_idea_test:    -> ppsych-proposal-and-commissioning
else:                                -> ppsych-topic-selection

Supplementary resources

• ../../resources/external_tools.md — search, preregistration, repositories, synthesis tooling
• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — official PoPS URLs behind every fact in this pack