---
name: spq-review-process
description: Use to understand how Social Psychology Quarterly (SPQ) evaluates a manuscript — masked (blinded) review, the blinding check that temporarily rejects under-blinded papers, what reviewers from different sociological-social-psychology traditions weigh, and the reject / revise-and-resubmit / accept decision pattern. Sets expectations and shapes the paper to survive review; it does not contact editors.
---

# Review Process (spq-review-process)

Knowing how SPQ screens and decides lets you pre-empt failure modes before submitting. SPQ uses **masked
review** and draws reviewers from across sociological social psychology, so a paper must read as a genuine
contribution to the field's traditions and must arrive properly blinded.

## When to trigger

- Before submitting, to stress-test fit and blinding
- Interpreting a decision letter and setting expectations
- Understanding what reviewers from your tradition (and adjacent ones) will weigh
- Deciding whether the contribution is strong enough for an Article or better as a Note

## How SPQ review works

1. **Masked / blinded.** Reviewers should not be able to identify the authors. You submit a **blinded
   manuscript** (no identifiers) plus a **separate title page** file. If the manuscript is **not
   sufficiently blinded**, the editorial office **temporarily rejects** it and returns it for
   reformatting before review resumes — an avoidable delay.
2. **Fit screening.** Editors assess whether the paper is genuinely **sociological social psychology** —
   does it illuminate the link between social structure/process and the individual? Work that is purely
   individual cognition or purely macro sociology is a poor fit and may be screened out.
3. **External review.** Papers are sent to expert reviewers, typically from the relevant tradition
   (symbolic interaction, SSP, group processes, identity, affect) and sometimes an adjacent one.
4. **Decision pattern.** Outcomes are **reject**, **revise and resubmit**, or **accept** (accept usually
   after revision). An R&R is an opportunity, not a promise.
5. **Data sharing is not a review criterion.** SPQ encourages sharing but **willingness to share data has
   no impact on acceptance** (see `spq-data-and-transparency`) — don't expect credit or penalty for it.

## Shape the paper to pass

- Make the **structure–individual link** explicit so the fit is obvious to an editor and any reviewer.
- Engage the right **tradition/program** so specialist reviewers see you know the frontier (see
  `spq-literature-positioning`).
- Validate measures / standardize the experimental setting so a methods-minded reviewer trusts the result.
- **Blind thoroughly** before submission to avoid a temporary rejection (see `spq-submission`).
- Clear ethics/IRB, consent, and confidentiality up front.

## Anti-patterns

- Submitting an under-blinded manuscript (triggers temporary rejection)
- Sending a JPSP/Psychological Science-style individual-cognition paper to SPQ (fit screen)
- Sending a macro-sociology paper with no social-psychological mechanism (fit screen)
- Expecting open data to improve your odds (it does not)
- Assuming an R&R is a near-acceptance — revise seriously


## Review-risk pass for Social Psychology Quarterly

Run this as a concrete capability pass. First lock the social-psychological process, measurement, design, and boundary condition across groups or contexts; then test whether the manuscript addresses social-psychology reviewers who expect interaction, identity, group process, or status mechanisms grounded in sociological theory.

- **Primary move:** Turn likely reviewer objections into a ledger with response evidence, manuscript location, and the decision-maker who must be convinced first.
- **Decision ledger:** return `claim / evidence / blocker / next edit` rows so the next pass can patch the manuscript directly.
- **Sibling comparison:** compare against JPSP for psychology breadth, ASR/AJS for sociology theory stakes, Social Forces for broader empirical sociology; if the neighboring outlet has the stronger audience claim, recommend re-routing before polishing.
- **Verification floor:** before submission-ready advice, re-open `resources/official-source-map.md` for volatile rules and name the one unresolved fact that could change the recommendation.

## Output format

```
【Fit】clearly sociological social psychology (structure–individual link)? [Y/N]
【Blinding】manuscript blinded + separate title page ready? [Y/N]
【Tradition reviewers】which program(s) will review it; frontier engaged? [Y/N]
【Measurement/setting credible】[Y/N]
【Realistic outcome】reject / R&R / accept-after-revision
【Next】spq-submission (or spq-rebuttal if decided)
```

## Supplementary resources

- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — masked-review and blinding rules, fit/scope, data-policy stance