---
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`](../../resources/external_tools.md) — preregistration and power-analysis tools
- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — accepted manuscript types and format