Literature Synthesis (ppsych-literature-synthesis)
When to trigger
- The topic/proposal is set and it is time to read across the relevant sub-areas thoroughly
- Reading feels unsystematic; you fear missing work a psychologist from an adjacent area would expect
- You have many papers but no way to weigh, compare, or reconcile their findings across paradigms
- For meta-science: you need systematic evidence about the field's practices, not just substantive findings
Coverage discipline: read across areas, not one literature
A PoPS piece's credibility rests on the reader's belief that you read across the relevant sub-areas, not only your home paradigm — and PoPS reviewers are often drawn from the very areas being integrated, so siloing is noticed. Build coverage systematically:
- Seed set. Start from the proposal's key references and each sub-area's canonical pieces.
- Forward + backward snowball. Backward: every paper's reference list. Forward: who cites the seeds (Google Scholar / Scopus / Web of Science). Iterate until new searches stop turning up unseen important work (saturation).
- Database + keyword sweep. Search PsycINFO/APA PsycNet, plus PubMed and discipline databases for adjacent fields (neuroscience, methods), by topic keywords and by the terms each sub-area uses for the same construct — different areas name the same phenomenon differently.
- Preprints + adjacent fields. A current PoPS piece must include recent preprints (PsyArXiv) and the bordering literatures the argument draws on, or referees flag staleness and siloing.
- Saturation log. Record when each sub-area's search stops yielding new must-cite work — your evidence of comprehensiveness for
ppsych-comprehensiveness-and-balance.
Meta-science: systematic evidence about the field's practices
If the piece is meta-science (about replication, reporting, power, bias, or methods as practiced), the "literature" includes the field's outputs as data: prevalence of a practice, distributions of statistics, registered-report rates, sharing rates. Treat the search as a systematic protocol:
- Pre-specify the sampling frame (journals, years, article filter) and inclusion/exclusion rules — ideally preregistered (see
ppsych-transparency-and-reproducibility).
- Pilot and document the coding scheme (what counts as a preregistration, an open-data badge, an underpowered design).
- Report search dates, hit counts, and screening outcomes (a PRISMA-style flow) so a reader can audit the corpus.
- Plan double-coding and inter-rater reliability for any subjective extraction.
From reading to synthesis (not summary)
Summarizing restates each paper; synthesizing makes papers from different areas talk to each other. Maintain an evidence matrix:
| Column |
What to capture |
| Study |
author–year, the result/claim you will cite it for |
| Sub-area / construct |
which area + how it operationalizes the construct (so non-comparable work is not pooled) |
| Method/sample |
design and sample (so you can weight credibility) |
| Finding |
direction + magnitude (effect sizes/CIs where available) |
| Credibility |
identification, power, replication status — your appraisal |
| Tension |
which other studies/areas it agrees or conflicts with, and why |
This matrix feeds the organizing framework, the summary exhibits, and the even-handed treatment of controversies. You appraise the primary work; you do not re-run it (unless the piece is a meta-analysis with a superordinate message — then its data/code must be reproducible).
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- Citing from one's home paradigm only (predictable cross-area gaps the integrated areas will spot)
- Summarizing paper-by-paper instead of synthesizing across areas
- Pooling studies that measure different constructs into one "the field finds…" claim
- Ignoring preprints (looks stale) or adjacent fields (looks siloed) in a broad journal
- Meta-science with an undocumented, unreplicable search — the reform critique applies to your own piece
- Re-running or "correcting" primary studies in a non-meta-analytic review — you appraise, you don't re-estimate
Output format
【Seed set】<canonical pieces per sub-area + proposal references>
【Snowball status】backward/forward iterated to saturation across areas? Y/N
【Databases swept】PsycINFO/PsycNet + adjacent — by keyword + construct terms? Y/N
【Preprints + adjacency】PsyArXiv + bordering literatures included? Y/N
【Meta-science protocol】sampling frame + coding scheme pre-specified; PRISMA flow? Y/N · N/A
【Saturation evidence】<where searches stopped yielding new must-cites>
【Evidence matrix】rows ready with construct / method / finding / appraisal / tension? Y/N
【Coverage risks】<any area/author an omission referee could name>
【Next step】→ ppsych-organizing-framework (impose the analytical spine on the matrix)
Source: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills → Perspectives-on-Psychological-Science-Skills/skills/ppsych-literature-synthesis/SKILL.md
1---2name: ppsych-literature-synthesis3description: Use when systematically gathering and synthesizing literature across psychology sub-areas for a Perspectives on Psychological Science (PoPS) integrative review, theoretical statement, or meta-science piece — coverage discipline, and for meta-science the systematic evidence about the field's practices. Builds the evidence corpus; it does not impose the analytical spine (ppsych-organizing-framework) or audit balance (ppsych-comprehensiveness-and-balance).4---5
6
7# Literature Synthesis (ppsych-literature-synthesis)
8
9## When to trigger
10
11- The topic/proposal is set and it is time to read across the relevant sub-areas thoroughly
12- Reading feels unsystematic; you fear missing work a psychologist from an adjacent area would expect
13- You have many papers but no way to weigh, compare, or reconcile their findings across paradigms
14- For meta-science: you need systematic evidence *about the field's practices*, not just substantive findings
15
16## Coverage discipline: read across areas, not one literature
17
18A PoPS piece's credibility rests on the reader's belief that you read **across the relevant sub-areas**, not only your home paradigm — and PoPS reviewers are often drawn from the very areas being integrated, so siloing is noticed. Build coverage systematically:
19
201. **Seed set.** Start from the proposal's key references and each sub-area's canonical pieces.
212. **Forward + backward snowball.** Backward: every paper's reference list. Forward: who cites the seeds (Google Scholar / Scopus / Web of Science). Iterate until new searches stop turning up unseen important work (*saturation*).
223. **Database + keyword sweep.** Search **PsycINFO/APA PsycNet**, plus PubMed and discipline databases for adjacent fields (neuroscience, methods), by topic keywords **and** by the terms each sub-area uses for the same construct — different areas name the same phenomenon differently.
234. **Preprints + adjacent fields.** A current PoPS piece must include recent preprints (PsyArXiv) and the bordering literatures the argument draws on, or referees flag staleness and siloing.
245. **Saturation log.** Record when each sub-area's search stops yielding new must-cite work — your evidence of comprehensiveness for `ppsych-comprehensiveness-and-balance`.
25
26## Meta-science: systematic evidence about the field's practices
27
28If the piece is **meta-science** (about replication, reporting, power, bias, or methods *as practiced*), the "literature" includes the field's outputs as **data**: prevalence of a practice, distributions of statistics, registered-report rates, sharing rates. Treat the search as a **systematic protocol**:
29
30- Pre-specify the sampling frame (journals, years, article filter) and inclusion/exclusion rules — ideally **preregistered** (see `ppsych-transparency-and-reproducibility`).
31- Pilot and document the coding scheme (what counts as a preregistration, an open-data badge, an underpowered design).
32- Report search dates, hit counts, and screening outcomes (a PRISMA-style flow) so a reader can audit the corpus.
33- Plan double-coding and inter-rater reliability for any subjective extraction.
34
35## From reading to synthesis (not summary)
36
37Summarizing restates each paper; **synthesizing** makes papers from different areas *talk to each other*. Maintain an evidence matrix:
38
39| Column | What to capture |
40|--------|-----------------|
41| Study | author–year, the result/claim you will cite it for |
42| Sub-area / construct | which area + how it operationalizes the construct (so non-comparable work is not pooled) |
43| Method/sample | design and sample (so you can weight credibility) |
44| Finding | direction + magnitude (effect sizes/CIs where available) |
45| Credibility | identification, power, replication status — your *appraisal* |
46| Tension | which other studies/areas it agrees or conflicts with, and why |
47
48This matrix feeds the organizing framework, the summary exhibits, and the even-handed treatment of controversies. You **appraise** the primary work; you do not re-run it (unless the piece *is* a meta-analysis with a superordinate message — then its data/code must be reproducible).
49
50## Checklist
51
52- [ ] Seed set drawn from each sub-area's canonical pieces + proposal references
53- [ ] Forward and backward snowball iterated to saturation in every sub-area
54- [ ] PsycINFO/PsycNet + adjacent databases swept by keyword **and** each area's construct terms
55- [ ] Recent preprints (PsyArXiv) and bordering literatures included (no staleness, no silo)
56- [ ] Saturation log records where each area's searches stopped yielding new must-cites
57- [ ] Meta-science: sampling frame + coding scheme pre-specified (ideally preregistered); PRISMA-style flow
58- [ ] Evidence matrix captures construct + method + finding + credibility + cross-area tension
59- [ ] Non-comparable constructs flagged as such (not pooled into a false "the literature finds…")
60
61## Anti-patterns
62
63- Citing from one's home paradigm only (predictable cross-area gaps the integrated areas will spot)
64- Summarizing paper-by-paper instead of synthesizing across areas
65- Pooling studies that measure *different* constructs into one "the field finds…" claim
66- Ignoring preprints (looks stale) or adjacent fields (looks siloed) in a *broad* journal
67- Meta-science with an undocumented, unreplicable search — the reform critique applies to your own piece
68- Re-running or "correcting" primary studies in a non-meta-analytic review — you appraise, you don't re-estimate
69
70## Output format
71
72```text
73【Seed set】<canonical pieces per sub-area + proposal references>
74【Snowball status】backward/forward iterated to saturation across areas? Y/N
75【Databases swept】PsycINFO/PsycNet + adjacent — by keyword + construct terms? Y/N
76【Preprints + adjacency】PsyArXiv + bordering literatures included? Y/N
77【Meta-science protocol】sampling frame + coding scheme pre-specified; PRISMA flow? Y/N · N/A
78【Saturation evidence】<where searches stopped yielding new must-cites>
79【Evidence matrix】rows ready with construct / method / finding / appraisal / tension? Y/N
80【Coverage risks】<any area/author an omission referee could name>
81【Next step】→ ppsych-organizing-framework (impose the analytical spine on the matrix)
82```
83
84---
85
86**Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `Perspectives-on-Psychological-Science-Skills/skills/ppsych-literature-synthesis/SKILL.md`
thedixitjain