By name: psychbull-topic-selection description: 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.
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
../../resources/external_tools.md— scoping-search databases and reporting standards../../resources/official-source-map.md— Psychological Bulletin scope (syntheses, not primary studies)