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
- It synthesizes existing research. The contribution is integrating prior studies, not
reporting new data (primary studies → other journals) and not pure theory (→ Psychological Review).
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
1---2name: psychbull-topic-selection3description: Use when deciding whether a question is review-worthy and meta-analyzable for Psychological Bulletin and which synthesis type fits (meta-analysis, systematic review, meta-review/meta-synthesis, qualitative review). Tests fit for an APA research-synthesis flagship; it does not write the review.4---56# Topic Selection & Synthesis Fit (psychbull-topic-selection)78Psychological Bulletin publishes **syntheses of research in scientific psychology**, not original9studies. The first question is therefore not "is my result interesting?" but **"is there a body of10existing studies worth synthesizing, and what synthesis does it support?"** This skill tests fit and11chooses the synthesis type; it does not draft content.1213## When to trigger1415- You have an idea for a review/meta-analysis and want to know if it fits Psychological Bulletin16- Deciding between a meta-analysis, a systematic review, or a qualitative review17- Worried the topic is too narrow, already reviewed, or actually a primary study in disguise1819## Fit test for Psychological Bulletin20211. **It synthesizes existing research.** The contribution is integrating *prior* studies, not22 reporting new data (primary studies → other journals) and not pure theory (→ *Psychological Review*).232. **There is a sufficient, locatable literature.** Enough comparable studies exist that a systematic24 search can plausibly recover them; a handful of papers is a narrative essay, not a Bulletin review.253. **General psychological significance.** The question matters across psychology, resolves a debate,26 reconciles conflicting findings, or estimates the size and moderators of a much-studied effect.274. **It adds beyond prior reviews.** If a recent meta-analysis exists, justify a new one (new studies,28 better methods, an unresolved moderator, a correction).2930## Choosing the synthesis type3132| If the literature… | Choose |33|--------------------|--------|34| Has many studies reporting **extractable, comparable effect sizes** | **Meta-analysis** |35| Is large but **heterogeneous / not cleanly poolable**, yet needs systematic appraisal | **Systematic review** (PRISMA) |36| Consists largely of **prior reviews or meta-analyses** | **Meta-review / meta-synthesis** |37| Is **qualitative or too varied to pool** but worth integrating | **Qualitative / narrative review** |3839## Scoping the question4041- Frame the question with an explicit structure (e.g., **PICO**-style: population, exposure/predictor,42 comparison/outcome) so eligibility can be operationalized later.43- Define the **outcome / effect** precisely — the same construct must be recoverable across studies.44- Anticipate the **moderators** you will test, so coding and search are designed for them.45- Sanity-check feasibility: a quick scoping search to estimate how many studies exist.4647## Anti-patterns4849- A "review" that is really an original empirical study with a literature section50- A topic with too few studies to synthesize (write a primary paper or a theory piece instead)51- Re-doing a recent meta-analysis with no added value52- Submitting original theory here instead of to *Psychological Review*53- A vague question that cannot be turned into eligibility criteria5455## Fit screening as a referee would apply it5657At the APA's flagship review journal, the most common early death is a topic that is not actually a58research synthesis, or one with too little to synthesize. The fit bar reviewers apply:5960| Fit dimension | Review-worthy at this venue | Off-fit / desk-reject trigger |61|---------------|------------------------------|-------------------------------|62| Object | Integrates existing studies | Reports new data (→ empirical journal) |63| Theory vs. synthesis | Theory grounded in synthesized evidence | Pure new theory (→ *Psychological Review*) |64| Literature size | Enough comparable studies to recover and pool | A handful of papers — a narrative essay |65| General significance | Resolves a discipline-wide debate | Narrow, of interest to one lab |6667## Worked vignette — testing a candidate topic6869*Illustrative figures only.* "Does self-affirmation improve academic outcomes?" is screened under this70skill's rules:7172- **Object**: it synthesizes existing randomized trials, not new data — in scope for the synthesis73 flagship.74- **Literature size**: a scoping search returns ~150 records and an estimated 40+ poolable trials —75 enough for a meta-analysis rather than a narrative essay.76- **Synthesis type**: extractable, comparable effect sizes point to **meta-analysis**.77- **Added value**: the last review predates a wave of new trials and never tested *delivery format* as a78 moderator — a defensible "why now."79- **Structured question** (PICO-style): population = students; predictor = self-affirmation intervention;80 outcome = academic performance — operationalizable into eligibility downstream.8182## Referee pushback → venue-specific fix8384- *"This is a primary study with a literature section."* → If the contribution is the new data, it is85 off-fit; submit only when an existing body of work is the object.86- *"A recent meta-analysis already exists."* → State the added value — new studies, a better model, or an87 untested moderator — or stand down.88- *"Too few studies to synthesize."* → Reconsider as a primary study or a theory piece.8990## Output format9192```93【Fit】synthesis of existing work? [Y/N — if N, which journal]94【Synthesis type】meta-analysis / systematic / meta-review / qualitative95【Question】structured (population / predictor / outcome)96【Why now】adds beyond prior reviews? [reason]97【Feasibility】rough study count from scoping search98【Next】psychbull-literature-search-strategy99```100101## Supplementary resources102103- [`../../resources/external_tools.md`](../../resources/external_tools.md) — scoping-search databases and reporting standards104- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — Psychological Bulletin scope (syntheses, not primary studies)
brycewang-stanford