---

name: arpsych-revision description: Use when responding to the Annual Review of Psychology (ARPsych) Editor's or Committee's peer-review letter on a delivered review, or to copyediting/proof queries. Handles the post-delivery revision loop; it does not run the pre-delivery preflight (arpsych-submission) or re-audit balance from scratch (arpsych-comprehensiveness-and-balance).

Revision — Responding to the Editor & Committee (arpsych-revision)

When to trigger

• A review letter arrived from the ARPsych Editor or a Committee member on the delivered draft
• Copyediting or proof queries need responses
• Reviewers flag coverage gaps, balance problems, length over-run, or accuracy issues
• You must turn comments into a tracked, point-by-point revision

What ARPsych review focuses on (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准)

The Committee assesses delivered reviews for accuracy, rigor, and balance (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). So letters tend to cluster on a few predictable axes — diagnose which you are facing, because the fix differs:

Comment type	What it really means	Fix route
"Missing literature X"	a coverage gap threatens authority	re-run targeted search; place X in a framework cell (arpsych-literature-synthesis)
"Reads as advocacy / under-covers camp Y"	balance failure	strengthen the rival account; re-weigh by credibility (arpsych-comprehensiveness-and-balance)
"Effect Z is overstated / didn't replicate"	accuracy/replication issue	recalibrate confidence language; flag replication status
"Over the assigned length"	scope too broad	narrow the organizing question, not just trim words (arpsych-organizing-framework)
"Hard to follow / too specialist"	accessibility	rewrite for the adjacent reader (arpsych-writing-style)
"Where does this come from?"	transparency	document the search / deposit meta-analysis materials (arpsych-transparency-and-reproducibility)

How to respond

1. Point-by-point response letter. Quote each comment; state the change; cite the new section/figure/line. Be gracious — these are senior colleagues curating a volume of record.
2. Concede genuine coverage/accuracy gaps. A missed literature or an overstated effect is a real problem in a review of record; fix it, do not argue it away.
3. Defend with evidence, not authority. Where you disagree, make the case from the literature and the framework — never "as the invited expert, I judge…".
4. Protect the spine. Add requested coverage into existing framework cells; do not bolt on a disconnected section that breaks the organizing idea.
5. Honor length. If adding material, cut elsewhere to stay within the assigned length (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).
6. Proof stage. At copyediting/proofs, check that house-style edits did not distort meaning and that re-rendered figures are accurate; answer queries promptly to protect the volume schedule.

Checklist

• Every comment addressed in a quoted, point-by-point letter
• Genuine coverage/accuracy gaps conceded and fixed (not argued away)
• Disagreements defended from literature/framework, not authorial standing
• New material folded into existing framework cells (spine intact)
• Confidence/replication language recalibrated where accuracy was challenged
• Length kept within the assigned limit after additions (cut to fit)
• Transparency/meta-analysis materials updated if the search changed
• Proof/copyedit queries answered promptly; figure re-renders verified

Anti-patterns

• Arguing away a real coverage gap instead of filling it (fatal in a review of record)
• Defending overstated claims by authority rather than recalibrating to the evidence
• Bolting requested topics on as a disconnected section that breaks the spine
• Letting additions blow past the assigned length
• Ignoring the replication-status concern that prompted an "overstated" comment
• Treating copyediting/proof queries as optional and slipping the volume schedule
• A defensive, status-claiming tone toward Committee colleagues

Output format

【Letter triage】comment types present (coverage / balance / accuracy / length / accessibility / transparency)
【Concessions】genuine gaps conceded + fixed? Y/N
【Defenses】disagreements argued from evidence (not authority)? Y/N
【Spine intact】new material folded into existing cells? Y/N
【Length】within assigned limit after edits? Y/N
【Transparency】search/meta-analysis materials updated if needed? Y/N | N/A
【Proofs】house-style edits + figure re-renders verified? Y/N
【Next step】return point-by-point response + revised review to the Editor