psychbull-topic-selection

Topic Selection & Synthesis Fit (psychbull-topic-selection)

Psychological Bulletin publishes syntheses of research in scientific psychology, not original

studies. The first question is therefore not "is my result interesting?" but **"is there a body of

existing studies worth synthesizing, and what synthesis does it support?"** This skill tests fit and

chooses the synthesis type; it does not draft content.

When to trigger

• You have an idea for a review/meta-analysis and want to know if it fits Psychological Bulletin
• Deciding between a meta-analysis, a systematic review, or a qualitative review
• Worried the topic is too narrow, already reviewed, or actually a primary study in disguise

Fit test for Psychological Bulletin

1. It synthesizes existing research. The contribution is integrating prior studies, not

reporting new data (primary studies → other journals) and not pure theory (→ Psychological Review).

1. There is a sufficient, locatable literature. Enough comparable studies exist that a systematic

search can plausibly recover them; a handful of papers is a narrative essay, not a Bulletin review.

1. General psychological significance. The question matters across psychology, resolves a debate,

reconciles conflicting findings, or estimates the size and moderators of a much-studied effect.

1. It adds beyond prior reviews. If a recent meta-analysis exists, justify a new one (new studies,

better methods, an unresolved moderator, a correction).

Choosing the synthesis type

| If the literature… | Choose |

|--------------------|--------|

| Has many studies reporting extractable, comparable effect sizes | Meta-analysis |

| Is large but heterogeneous / not cleanly poolable, yet needs systematic appraisal | Systematic review (PRISMA) |

| Consists largely of prior reviews or meta-analyses | Meta-review / meta-synthesis |

| Is qualitative or too varied to pool but worth integrating | Qualitative / narrative review |

Scoping the question

• Frame the question with an explicit structure (e.g., PICO-style: population, exposure/predictor,

comparison/outcome) so eligibility can be operationalized later.

• Define the outcome / effect precisely — the same construct must be recoverable across studies.
• Anticipate the moderators you will test, so coding and search are designed for them.
• Sanity-check feasibility: a quick scoping search to estimate how many studies exist.

Anti-patterns

• A "review" that is really an original empirical study with a literature section
• A topic with too few studies to synthesize (write a primary paper or a theory piece instead)
• Re-doing a recent meta-analysis with no added value
• Submitting original theory here instead of to Psychological Review
• A vague question that cannot be turned into eligibility criteria

Fit screening as a referee would apply it

At the APA's flagship review journal, the most common early death is a topic that is not actually a

research synthesis, or one with too little to synthesize. The fit bar reviewers apply:

| Fit dimension | Review-worthy at this venue | Off-fit / desk-reject trigger |

|---------------|------------------------------|-------------------------------|

| Object | Integrates existing studies | Reports new data (→ empirical journal) |

| Theory vs. synthesis | Theory grounded in synthesized evidence | Pure new theory (→ Psychological Review) |

| Literature size | Enough comparable studies to recover and pool | A handful of papers — a narrative essay |

| General significance | Resolves a discipline-wide debate | Narrow, of interest to one lab |

Worked vignette — testing a candidate topic

Illustrative figures only. "Does self-affirmation improve academic outcomes?" is screened under this

skill's rules:

• Object: it synthesizes existing randomized trials, not new data — in scope for the synthesis

flagship.

• Literature size: a scoping search returns ~150 records and an estimated 40+ poolable trials —

enough for a meta-analysis rather than a narrative essay.

• Synthesis type: extractable, comparable effect sizes point to meta-analysis.
• Added value: the last review predates a wave of new trials and never tested delivery format as a

moderator — a defensible "why now."

• Structured question (PICO-style): population = students; predictor = self-affirmation intervention;

outcome = academic performance — operationalizable into eligibility downstream.

Referee pushback → venue-specific fix

• "This is a primary study with a literature section." → If the contribution is the new data, it is

off-fit; submit only when an existing body of work is the object.

• "A recent meta-analysis already exists." → State the added value — new studies, a better model, or an

untested moderator — or stand down.

• "Too few studies to synthesize." → Reconsider as a primary study or a theory piece.

Output format

【Fit】synthesis of existing work? [Y/N — if N, which journal]
【Synthesis type】meta-analysis / systematic / meta-review / qualitative
【Question】structured (population / predictor / outcome)
【Why now】adds beyond prior reviews? [reason]
【Feasibility】rough study count from scoping search
【Next】psychbull-literature-search-strategy

Supplementary resources

• [../../resources/external_tools.md](../../resources/external_tools.md) — scoping-search databases and reporting standards
• [../../resources/official-source-map.md](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — Psychological Bulletin scope (syntheses, not primary studies)