psychrev-literature-positioning

Literature Positioning (psychrev-literature-positioning)

When to trigger

• The model is forming but you cannot name whose account you improve on
• Reviewers (you anticipate) will ask "how is this different from [established model]?"
• Your introduction cites broadly but engages no specific theory
• You are unsure whether your idea is new or a re-derivation of a known model

The core move: name the rivals, not just the topic

At Psychological Review the central positioning question is not "what is the area?" but

"**which existing theories make claims about this explanandum, and what does yours do that

they cannot?**" Editors and reviewers are typically drawn from exactly the modeling tradition

you enter. A paper that does not engage the standing models reads as unaware of its own field.

For each phenomenon in your explanandum, build a rival map:

| Phenomenon (diagnostic) | Rival theory/model | What it predicts | Where it fails / is silent | Your account |

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

The most persuasive Review papers select diagnostic phenomena — cases where rivals make

different predictions — and show their theory gets these right while saying clearly where

rivals do not. "Systematic evaluation of alternative theories" is in the journal's own scope

statement; positioning is where that evaluation begins.

Three positioning stances (pick the honest one)

1. Subsumption — your theory recovers the rival as a special case and explains more. The

strongest stance; show the limiting condition under which yours reduces to theirs.

1. Adjudication — two rivals conflict; your theory (or a formal contrast) settles which is

right, or shows both are special cases of a deeper mechanism.

1. Extension into new territory — rivals are silent on phenomena yours explains. Weaker

unless the new territory is important and the rivals genuinely cannot be stretched to cover it.

Avoid the false-novelty stance ("no one has modeled this") when a standing model could be

applied — a reviewer will apply it for you.

Reading the conversation honestly

• Cite the current state of each rival, not its 1990 form, if it has since been revised.
• Represent rivals at their strongest (steelman). Beating a weak version is the classic

reviewer complaint at this journal.

• Distinguish a rival's core commitment from its implementational details; do not

claim victory by defeating a replaceable detail.

• Locate yourself relative to formal rivals where they exist — a verbal contrast with a

formal model invites the question "but what does your model predict quantitatively?"

Checklist

• [ ] Every diagnostic phenomenon has a named rival theory/model
• [ ] The rival map states what each rival predicts and where it fails or is silent
• [ ] Rivals are represented at their current, strongest form (steelmanned)
• [ ] The positioning stance (subsumption / adjudication / extension) is explicit
• [ ] Where a rival is formal, your contrast addresses it on formal terms
• [ ] The "before → after" the field can do is implied and ready for contribution-framing

Anti-patterns

• A topic-level literature review with no specific rival models named
• Beating a strawman or an outdated version of a standing theory
• Claiming "no one has done this" when an existing model obviously applies
• Citing rivals only in the introduction, then never contrasting predictions
• Confusing positioning (whose account) with contribution (what is new) — keep them separate
• Ignoring formal rivals because your own theory is verbal

Output format

【Conversation】[the modeling tradition / theoretical debate entered]
【Rival map】[phenomenon → rival → its prediction → its failure → your account] (table)
【Stance】subsumption | adjudication | extension — with the limiting/diagnostic condition
【Steelman check】rivals stated at strongest, current form: yes / fix
【Next step】psychrev-theory-construction (if model not built) → psychrev-argument-development