---

name: psci-topic-selection description: Use when deciding whether an empirical psychology project fits Psychological Science and which manuscript type to target. The journal favors concise, high-impact, well-powered work whose claims are robust and broadly relevant. Frames the question; it does not collect data.

Topic Selection & Fit (psci-topic-selection)

Psychological Science publishes concise, high-impact empirical psychology. The bar is a finding that is important, robust, and broadly relevant — and that can be argued in a very tight format. Use this skill to pressure-test fit before investing.

When to trigger

• Choosing among possible projects or framings for Psychological Science
• A reader said the work feels "incremental," "underpowered," or "too niche"
• Deciding between a Research Article and a Registered Report
• A replication or extension you want to place (it must fit an Article or RR, not a retired Short Report)

The fit test

A strong Psychological Science paper usually clears all four:

1. Impact + breadth. It changes how psychologists understand a phenomenon and is relevant beyond one narrow paradigm. State why a psychologist in another area should care.
2. Robustness. Adequately powered, with a credible design and analysis; the result should not hinge on researcher degrees of freedom (see psci-study-design, psci-data-analysis).
3. Open-science ready. You can share data and materials (or justify a documented exemption) and, ideally, preregister — these are now requirements/graded factors, not extras.
4. Fits the format. The argument can be made with a ≤ 2,000-word Introduction + Discussion and a focused Method/Results. If it needs a sprawling narrative, it is the wrong venue or wrong framing.

Manuscript type

• Research Article — completed, well-powered empirical study (novel, replication, or extension).
• Registered Report (Stage 1) — strong prospective design; reviewed and accepted before data, which protects against publication bias and is ideal for confirmatory or replication work.
• Registered Report with Existing Data — confirmatory analysis on data you have not yet analyzed for this purpose; declare data provenance honestly.
• Commentary / Reply — a brief, focused response to a published paper (≤ 1,000 words).

Fit scoring — worked example (illustrative)

Score a candidate against the four gates before investing. The attention project, two framings:

Candidate A (off-fit): one N = 45 study, surprising induction effect,
            no preregistration, request-only data.
  Impact/breadth  ~ moderate    Robustness ✗ (underpowered, single study)
  Open-science ✗ (request-only)  Format ✓
  Verdict: off-fit → reframe as a powered, preregistered package or place elsewhere.

Candidate B (strong): two preregistered studies (N = 240; N = 300),
            internal replication, open data + materials with DOIs.
  Impact/breadth ✓ (load-bearing premise, clinical inheritance)
  Robustness ✓   Open-science ✓   Format ✓ (argues in < 2,000 words)
  Verdict: strong fit → Research Article (or RR if framed prospectively).

Manuscript-type decision rules

If the work is...	Target type	Why
Completed, powered, results in hand	Research Article	standard high-impact empirical slot
Designed but not yet run, confirmatory	Registered Report (Stage 1)	protects against publication bias; strongest credibility
A confirmatory test on un-analyzed existing data	RR with Existing Data	declare provenance honestly
A focused critique of a published paper	Commentary / Reply	brief, bounded (confirm current limit)
A replication of a famous fragile finding	Article or RR	Short Reports / standalone PDRs are retired

Reviewer / editor pushback at the fit stage

• "Feels incremental" → find the decisive test or boundary condition that a broad audience inherits.
• "Too niche" → if no one outside the subarea cares, reframe the question or choose a specialty venue.
• "Underpowered and surprising" → this is the venue's cautionary archetype; add power and replication before submitting, or expect a Registered Report suggestion.

Anti-patterns

• A single small, underpowered study with a surprising effect (robustness risk)
• A niche paradigm result with no broad relevance
• Choosing a Research Article when a Registered Report would make a confirmatory claim far stronger
• A project whose data/materials you cannot share and cannot justify withholding

Output format

【Question / effect】one sentence
【Impact + breadth】who cares beyond the subarea, and why
【Robustness】powered? design credible? preregisterable?
【Open-science ready】data + materials shareable (or justified)? [Y/N]
【Type】Research Article / Registered Report (S1) / RR-Existing-Data / Commentary
【Fit verdict】strong / needs reframing / off-fit (why)
【Next】psci-literature-positioning

Supplementary resources

• ../../resources/external_tools.md — preregistration and power-analysis tools
• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — accepted manuscript types and format