---

name: cogpsych-topic-selection description: Use when deciding whether a cognition project fits Cognitive Psychology (Elsevier) and what contribution shape to target. The journal favors longer, integrative, model-driven work that produces a substantial theoretical advance — not a single isolated effect. Frames the question and the model-or-theory payoff; it does not collect data.

Topic Selection & Fit (cogpsych-topic-selection)

Cognitive Psychology publishes longer, integrative articles that have a major impact on theories of cognition. The bar is a substantial theoretical advance — usually carried by a multi-experiment program tied to a formal/computational model, an incisive experimental series, or a modeling/review contribution. Use this skill to pressure-test fit before investing.

When to trigger

• Choosing among possible projects or framings for Cognitive Psychology
• A reader said the work feels "one effect," "atheoretical," or "better as a short report"
• Deciding whether the contribution needs a formal model, more experiments, or both
• A modeling or review project you want to place

The fit test

A strong Cognitive Psychology paper usually clears all four:

1. Theoretical advance, not an effect. It changes a theory of cognition — adjudicates between accounts, formalizes a mechanism, or maps a phenomenon's boundary — rather than adding one more demonstration. State the theory it moves.
2. Integrative scope. The contribution is carried by a program (multiple experiments and/or a model fit to data), not a single study. Each piece must add inference.
3. Formal/computational backbone where apt. Cognition here is often expressed as a model that is fit and compared; if your account can be formalized, the venue rewards doing so (see cogpsych-theory-and-hypotheses).
4. Reproducible and shareable. You can deposit data, model/analysis code, and materials so the modeling is reproducible (see cogpsych-open-science-and-transparency).

Contribution shape

• Multi-experiment empirical — a controlled series that jointly constrains a theory (each experiment rules out an alternative or extends scope).
• Experiment + model — the journal's signature shape: experiments designed to discriminate models, with a formal model fit to the data and compared to rivals.
• Modeling-led — a new model (or analysis) tested by fitting, model recovery, and comparison against existing or new data.
• Theoretical / integrative review — a synthesis that delivers a substantive theoretical advance, not a literature catalogue.

Fit scoring — worked example (illustrative)

Score a candidate against the four gates before investing. A recognition-memory project, two framings:

Candidate A (off-fit): one N = 40 experiment showing a novel list-length
            effect, described verbally, no model, request-only data.
  Theoretical advance ✗ (one effect)   Integrative scope ✗ (single study)
  Formal backbone ✗ (verbal only)      Reproducible ✗ (request-only)
  Verdict: off-fit → either grow into a model-driven program or place as a
           short report elsewhere.

Candidate B (strong): three experiments that separate unequal-variance signal
            detection from a dual-process account, both models fit and
            compared, open data + model code.
  Theoretical advance ✓ (adjudicates two theories)  Integrative scope ✓
  Formal backbone ✓ (fit + compared)   Reproducible ✓ (code deposited)
  Verdict: strong fit → Experiment + model contribution.

Contribution-type decision rules

If the work is...	Target shape	Why
A controlled series constraining one theory	Multi-experiment empirical	the integrative arc the venue expects
Experiments that can discriminate formal models	Experiment + model	the journal's signature, highest-impact shape
A new model tested by fitting + recovery + comparison	Modeling-led	formal contribution to theory
A synthesis with a genuine theoretical advance	Integrative review	not a catalogue; must reframe the field
One surprising effect, no theory, no model	wrong venue (reframe)	belongs in a short-report journal

Sibling-journal fit guard

• Cognition (Elsevier) also takes cognition papers but is broader and more effect-/phenomenon-led; Cognitive Psychology skews longer and more model-driven.
• JEP: General (APA) overlaps but Cognitive Psychology leans harder into formal modeling and the multi-experiment program.
• Psychological Science wants short, single-finding reports — the opposite length/ambition.
• Journal of Memory and Language is the natural home for memory/language work that is narrower in scope; bring the integrative-model contribution here.

Reviewer / editor pushback at the fit stage

• "This is one effect" → identify the theory it adjudicates and the further experiments/model that make it a program.
• "Atheoretical" → formalize the mechanism; show the model that the experiments test.
• "Better as a short report" → if it cannot sustain a long, integrative argument, it is the wrong venue.

Anti-patterns

• A single experiment reporting one isolated effect with no formal/theoretical payoff
• A "model" that is only verbal and never fit or compared
• A review that catalogues the literature without a theoretical advance
• A project whose modeling cannot be reproduced because code/data cannot be shared

Output format

【Question / phenomenon】one sentence
【Theoretical advance】which theory it moves, and how
【Scope】program of experiments and/or a fitted model? [Y/N]
【Formal backbone】can it be formalized + compared? [Y/N/NA]
【Reproducible】data + model code + materials shareable? [Y/N]
【Type】Multi-experiment / Experiment + model / Modeling-led / Review
【Fit verdict】strong / needs reframing / off-fit (why)
【Next】cogpsych-theory-and-hypotheses

Supplementary resources

• ../../resources/external_tools.md — modeling and model-comparison tooling
• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — scope, article types, and house style