# Psychrev Writing Style

> Use when polishing a Psychological Review manuscript to APA house style and theory-paper register — mechanism-first prose, model vocabulary, no empirical-report framing. A late-stage polish; it does NOT build the theory (psychrev-theory-construction) or derive its predictions (psychrev-argument-development).

- Skill: `thedixitjain/psychrev-writing-style` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds add thedixitjain/psychrev-writing-style`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/thedixitjain/psychrev-writing-style/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: AI & ML
- Author: thedixitjain (https://skillmd.com/u/thedixitjain)
- Updated: 2026-09-08
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/thedixitjain/psychrev-writing-style

---



# Writing Style: APA Theory-Paper Register (psychrev-writing-style)

> Polish **after** the derivations stand up (`psychrev-argument-development`) and the
> contribution is differentiated (`psychrev-contribution-framing`). Prose cannot rescue a
> theory whose logic does not hold.

## When to trigger

- The theory, derivations, and figures are in place; the draft needs its final voice
- The prose reads like a literature review or an empirical report, not a theoretical argument
- You are unsure of APA conventions for a theory paper with no methods/results
- Reviewers (anticipated) will say "well written but I can't find the argument"

## The Psychological Review introduction arc

A Review introduction moves: **the phenomenon/tension → the standing theories and what they
cannot do → the move this paper makes (the model/mechanism) → the contribution, stated early
→ a brief roadmap.** State what the paper delivers within the first page or two; do not bury
the theoretical move under a survey. The arc is the same disciplined shape used in the worked
example in `resources/worked-examples/01-introduction.md`.

## Register: the vocabulary is theory, not data

The single most common tell of a wrong-register draft is empirical vocabulary. At Psychological
Review you write about a **model**, its **assumptions**, **mechanisms**, **parameters**,
**predictions**, and **scope** — not about "the study," "we found," "results," "significant," or
"p < .05" (you ran no experiment). Existing data are *evidence the model confronts*, never the
contribution.

| Avoid (empirical register)        | Use (theory register)                          |
|-----------------------------------|------------------------------------------------|
| "We found that..."                | "The model predicts / entails that..."         |
| "Our results show..."             | "The derivation shows... / Simulation shows..."|
| "was significant (p < .05)"       | "the predicted ordering holds / the signature appears" |
| "we ran a study / experiment"     | "we derive... / we simulate... / existing data show..." |
| "limitation of this study"        | "boundary condition of the theory"             |
| "future research should test"     | "the theory makes the falsifiable prediction that..." |

## APA house-style essentials

- **APA 7th-edition** formatting: double-spaced, 12-pt, 1-inch margins, author–date citations,
  full reference list (verify the current edition on the author page; 检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).
- Abstract within the journal's limit (**250 words**, verify) — state the problem, the theoretical
  move, and the contribution; no data/results language.
- Define every construct/parameter on first use and use the term consistently thereafter
  (construct clarity, in the spirit of APA theory-paper norms).
- Equations numbered and referenced in text; notation defined at first use and kept consistent.
- Plain, precise, mechanism-first sentences; avoid hedging chains and decorative jargon.
- Headings organize by **theory**, not by IMRaD — there is no Method or Results section; typical
  spine is problem → model → derivations/confrontation → scope → general discussion.

## Checklist

- [ ] Introduction follows phenomenon/tension → standing theories' gap → the move → contribution-early → roadmap
- [ ] No empirical-report vocabulary ("we found," "results," "significant," "study")
- [ ] Existing data framed as evidence the model confronts, never as the contribution
- [ ] Every construct/parameter defined on first use and used consistently
- [ ] Equations numbered; notation defined and consistent
- [ ] Abstract within the limit; states problem, move, contribution; no results language
- [ ] APA 7th citations/references; headings organized by theory, not IMRaD

## Anti-patterns

- A dictionary/survey opening ("X has been studied extensively...") instead of the tension
- Empirical-report register in a theory paper (the wrong-journal tell)
- Burying the contribution on page 10 under a literature review
- Inconsistent notation or undefined parameters
- Decorative formalism — equations that add symbols but no theoretical content
- Over-signposted roadmaps doing the work the argument should do

## Output format

```
【Intro arc】tension → standing-theory gap → the move → contribution-early → roadmap: yes / fix
【Register】no empirical vocabulary; data = evidence, not contribution: yes / fix
【Definitions/notation】constructs & parameters defined once, used consistently: yes / fix
【APA】7th-ed citations; abstract ≤ limit; theory-organized headings: yes / fix
【Next step】psychrev-submission (Editorial Manager preflight)
```

---

**Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `Psychological-Review-Skills/skills/psychrev-writing-style/SKILL.md`