Systematic Search Strategy (psychbull-literature-search-strategy)
A Psychological Bulletin synthesis stands or falls on its search: it must be systematic,
exhaustive, and reproducible, and all systematic reviews must conform to PRISMA. The goal is
that an independent team could re-run your search and recover the same pool. This skill designs and
documents the search; eligibility decisions and coding live in psychbull-inclusion-and-coding.
When to trigger
- Designing the search before screening begins
- A reviewer asks whether the search was exhaustive or reproducible
- Building the PRISMA flow counts (identified → screened → eligible → included)
- Updating the search before resubmission
What an exhaustive search covers
- Multiple databases, not one. At minimum APA PsycINFO, plus MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of
Science, Scopus, and discipline-specific sources (ERIC, EMBASE) as relevant.
- Controlled vocabulary + free text. Combine thesaurus terms (APA Thesaurus / MeSH) with
free-text synonyms; use Boolean logic and field tags deliberately.
- Grey literature & publication-bias mitigation. Dissertations (ProQuest), preprints (PsyArXiv),
conference programs, registries, and author contact for unpublished/in-press data — to limit
the file-drawer problem before the bias analysis ever runs.
- Backward & forward citation chasing. Reference lists of included studies and prior reviews;
forward citations (cited-by) of key papers.
- Supplementary tools. Google Scholar as a supplement (not a primary database, given non-reproducible ranking).
Documenting for PRISMA / PRISMA-S
- Record, per source: the exact search string, the database/platform and date searched,
and the number of hits. This is the PRISMA-S standard.
- Track the flow: records identified → duplicates removed → titles/abstracts screened → full texts
assessed → studies included, with counts and exclusion reasons at each stage.
- Save the raw exports; deduplicate in a reference manager (Zotero/EndNote) or screening tool
(Covidence/Rayyan) and log the dedup count.
Anti-patterns
- Searching only one database, or only published, peer-reviewed work (biases the pool)
- Reporting "we searched the literature" with no strings, dates, or counts
- A search that cannot be reproduced because the strings were never recorded
- Letting search scope drift silently from the registered protocol without noting the change
- Skipping grey literature, then being surprised by publication-bias findings
What search referees verify at the APA flagship
A Psychological Bulletin synthesis lives or dies on whether an independent team could rebuild its study
pool. Reviewers at the APA's flagship review journal apply an explicit search bar:
| Search expectation |
Pass |
Desk-reject / major-revision trigger |
| Database breadth |
PsycINFO + several others + discipline sources |
A single database, usually PsycINFO alone |
| Strings recorded |
Per-source string, platform, and date logged |
"We searched the literature" with no strings |
| Grey literature |
Dissertations, preprints, author contact |
Published peer-reviewed work only |
| Citation chasing |
Backward and forward, documented |
None; pool is whatever the keywords returned |
| PRISMA flow |
Counts and exclusion reasons reconcile |
Numbers that don't add up to the included k |
Worked vignette — documenting the search
Illustrative counts only. The self-affirmation synthesis (final k = 42) builds its PRISMA flow this
way under this skill's rules:
- Databases: PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, and ERIC, each searched on a stated date
with its exact thesaurus-plus-free-text string recorded per PRISMA-S.
- Grey literature: ProQuest dissertations and PsyArXiv preprints searched; authors of 11 in-progress
trials contacted, yielding 3 unpublished datasets — narrowing the file drawer before bias diagnostics.
- Citation chasing: backward (reference lists of included studies and two prior reviews) and forward
(cited-by of the 5 anchor papers) added 7 records the keyword search missed.
- PRISMA flow: 2,310 identified → 1,640 after dedup → 1,640 screened → 188 full-text →
42 included, with exclusion reasons tallied so the final box equals the analyzed k.
Referee pushback → venue-specific fix
- "The search isn't exhaustive." → Add the missing databases and grey-literature sources; document
author contact for unpublished data.
- "There are PRISMA gaps." → Supply per-source strings, dates, and hit counts, and make the flow
diagram reconcile end to end.
- "This search can't be reproduced." → Record and deposit the exact strings so an independent team
recovers the same pool; treat Google Scholar as a supplement, not a primary source.
Output format
【Databases】list (PsycINFO + …) with date searched
【Strings】per-database string recorded? [Y/N]
【Grey literature】dissertations / preprints / author contact? [Y/N]
【Citation chasing】backward + forward done? [Y/N]
【PRISMA counts】identified / dedup / screened / full-text / included
【Reproducible】independent team could re-run? [Y/N]
【Next】psychbull-inclusion-and-coding
Supplementary resources
Source: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills → Psychological-Bulletin-Skills/skills/psychbull-literature-search-strategy/SKILL.md
1---2name: psychbull-literature-search-strategy3description: Use when designing and documenting the systematic literature search for a Psychological Bulletin review or meta-analysis — databases, search strings, grey literature, deduplication, and a PRISMA-compliant records flow. Builds a reproducible search; it does not screen or code studies.4---5
6
7# Systematic Search Strategy (psychbull-literature-search-strategy)
8
9A Psychological Bulletin synthesis stands or falls on its **search**: it must be **systematic,
10exhaustive, and reproducible**, and **all systematic reviews must conform to PRISMA**. The goal is
11that an independent team could re-run your search and recover the same pool. This skill designs and
12documents the search; eligibility decisions and coding live in `psychbull-inclusion-and-coding`.
13
14## When to trigger
15
16- Designing the search before screening begins
17- A reviewer asks whether the search was exhaustive or reproducible
18- Building the **PRISMA flow** counts (identified → screened → eligible → included)
19- Updating the search before resubmission
20
21## What an exhaustive search covers
22
231. **Multiple databases, not one.** At minimum APA **PsycINFO**, plus **MEDLINE/PubMed**, **Web of
24 Science**, **Scopus**, and discipline-specific sources (ERIC, EMBASE) as relevant.
252. **Controlled vocabulary + free text.** Combine thesaurus terms (APA Thesaurus / MeSH) with
26 free-text synonyms; use Boolean logic and field tags deliberately.
273. **Grey literature & publication-bias mitigation.** Dissertations (ProQuest), preprints (PsyArXiv),
28 conference programs, registries, and **author contact** for unpublished/in-press data — to limit
29 the file-drawer problem before the bias analysis ever runs.
304. **Backward & forward citation chasing.** Reference lists of included studies and prior reviews;
31 forward citations (cited-by) of key papers.
325. **Supplementary tools.** Google Scholar as a supplement (not a primary database, given non-reproducible ranking).
33
34## Documenting for PRISMA / PRISMA-S
35
36- Record, **per source**: the **exact search string**, the **database/platform and date searched**,
37 and the **number of hits**. This is the PRISMA-S standard.
38- Track the flow: **records identified → duplicates removed → titles/abstracts screened → full texts
39 assessed → studies included**, with **counts and exclusion reasons** at each stage.
40- Save the raw exports; deduplicate in a reference manager (Zotero/EndNote) or screening tool
41 (Covidence/Rayyan) and log the dedup count.
42
43## Anti-patterns
44
45- Searching only one database, or only published, peer-reviewed work (biases the pool)
46- Reporting "we searched the literature" with no strings, dates, or counts
47- A search that cannot be reproduced because the strings were never recorded
48- Letting search scope drift silently from the registered protocol without noting the change
49- Skipping grey literature, then being surprised by publication-bias findings
50
51## What search referees verify at the APA flagship
52
53A Psychological Bulletin synthesis lives or dies on whether an independent team could rebuild its study
54pool. Reviewers at the APA's flagship review journal apply an explicit search bar:
55
56| Search expectation | Pass | Desk-reject / major-revision trigger |
57|--------------------|------|--------------------------------------|
58| Database breadth | PsycINFO + several others + discipline sources | A single database, usually PsycINFO alone |
59| Strings recorded | Per-source string, platform, and date logged | "We searched the literature" with no strings |
60| Grey literature | Dissertations, preprints, author contact | Published peer-reviewed work only |
61| Citation chasing | Backward and forward, documented | None; pool is whatever the keywords returned |
62| PRISMA flow | Counts and exclusion reasons reconcile | Numbers that don't add up to the included k |
63
64## Worked vignette — documenting the search
65
66*Illustrative counts only.* The self-affirmation synthesis (final k = 42) builds its PRISMA flow this
67way under this skill's rules:
68
69- **Databases**: PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, and ERIC, each searched on a stated date
70 with its exact thesaurus-plus-free-text string recorded per PRISMA-S.
71- **Grey literature**: ProQuest dissertations and PsyArXiv preprints searched; authors of 11 in-progress
72 trials contacted, yielding 3 unpublished datasets — narrowing the file drawer before bias diagnostics.
73- **Citation chasing**: backward (reference lists of included studies and two prior reviews) and forward
74 (cited-by of the 5 anchor papers) added 7 records the keyword search missed.
75- **PRISMA flow**: 2,310 identified → 1,640 after dedup → 1,640 screened → 188 full-text →
76 42 included, with exclusion reasons tallied so the final box equals the analyzed k.
77
78## Referee pushback → venue-specific fix
79
80- *"The search isn't exhaustive."* → Add the missing databases and grey-literature sources; document
81 author contact for unpublished data.
82- *"There are PRISMA gaps."* → Supply per-source strings, dates, and hit counts, and make the flow
83 diagram reconcile end to end.
84- *"This search can't be reproduced."* → Record and deposit the exact strings so an independent team
85 recovers the same pool; treat Google Scholar as a supplement, not a primary source.
86
87## Output format
88
89```
90【Databases】list (PsycINFO + …) with date searched
91【Strings】per-database string recorded? [Y/N]
92【Grey literature】dissertations / preprints / author contact? [Y/N]
93【Citation chasing】backward + forward done? [Y/N]
94【PRISMA counts】identified / dedup / screened / full-text / included
95【Reproducible】independent team could re-run? [Y/N]
96【Next】psychbull-inclusion-and-coding
97```
98
99## Supplementary resources
100
101- [`../../resources/external_tools.md`](../../resources/external_tools.md) — databases, screening managers (Covidence/Rayyan), PRISMA-S
102- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — PRISMA requirement for systematic reviews
103
104---
105
106**Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `Psychological-Bulletin-Skills/skills/psychbull-literature-search-strategy/SKILL.md`
thedixitjain