Arpsych Proposal And Commissioning

---
name: arpsych-proposal-and-commissioning
description: Use when getting a topic in front of the Annual Review of Psychology (ARPsych) Editorial Committee, suggesting a topic/author, or shaping an accepted invitation into an agreed scope. Handles the commissioning relationship; it does not test topic maturity (arpsych-topic-selection) or read the literature (arpsych-literature-synthesis).
---

# Proposal & Commissioning — Getting Invited (arpsych-proposal-and-commissioning)

## When to trigger

- The user has an ARPsych-worthy topic but no invitation yet
- An invitation letter arrived and the scope/length/deadline need to be pinned down
- The user wants to suggest a topic or an author to the Editorial Committee
- A co-author lineup and division of labor must be settled before the heavy reading begins

## How ARPsych commissioning actually works (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准)

ARPsych is **commissioning-first**. The flow is the opposite of a normal journal:

1. The **Editorial Committee** (an Editor — Susan T. Fiske since 2000 — plus associate editors and rotating members appointed by the Annual Reviews board) plans each annual volume, deciding which topics the field needs covered (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).
2. The Committee **identifies and invites qualified authors** based on scholarly reputation and publication record. **Unsolicited manuscripts are not accepted** (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).
3. **You may suggest a topic** (and yourself or others as author) for the Committee's consideration through the official channels, but suggestion ≠ acceptance — the Committee curates the volume (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).
4. The **invitation letter specifies the assigned length and the due date**; treat both as binding (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).

So "submitting to ARPsych" means **earning an invitation**, then delivering to spec. Plan accordingly: the time to influence the topic is *before* a draft exists.

## Two situations, two playbooks

### A) No invitation yet — suggesting a topic
- Frame the topic as a **gap in the volume's coverage**, not "my work deserves a review." The Committee thinks in terms of what the field is missing.
- Name the **organizing question** (from `arpsych-topic-selection`), why now (maturity), and why ARPsych's broad readership needs it.
- Propose **author(s)** with the standing and balance to cover the area even-handedly — including, ideally, people *not* identified with one camp.
- Use official suggestion channels; do not send a finished manuscript (it cannot be accepted cold).

### B) Invitation in hand — locking the contract
- Confirm **assigned length** and **due date** in writing; ARPsych asks authors to keep to the assigned length, which includes figures and tables (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).
- Negotiate **scope** explicitly: what is in, what is out, where the boundary sits with neighboring commissioned reviews.
- Agree the **author order and contributions** up front; a multi-author review needs one voice (see `arpsych-writing-style`).
- Calendar the production milestones early (see `arpsych-editor-strategy`).

## Checklist

- [ ] Clear on which situation applies (suggesting vs. invited)
- [ ] Organizing question and "why now / why ARPsych readers" are one paragraph each
- [ ] If suggesting: framed as a coverage gap; author lineup is balanced, not partisan
- [ ] If invited: assigned **length** and **due date** confirmed in writing
- [ ] Scope boundary agreed with the Editor (in/out; overlap with sibling commissions)
- [ ] Author order and contribution split settled before reading starts
- [ ] No finished manuscript sent as a cold submission

## Anti-patterns

- Sending a complete manuscript unsolicited — it cannot enter the pipeline (invitation-only)
- Pitching "a review of my contributions" rather than a field the volume is missing
- Ignoring the assigned length in the invitation and over-running by 50%
- Proposing a single-camp author team for a contested topic (balance is editorial currency)
- Starting the literature read before scope and length are agreed (wasted breadth)
- Treating a topic *suggestion* as an acceptance and drafting prematurely

## Output format

```text
【Situation】suggesting-topic | invitation-in-hand
【Organizing question】"<one question>"
【Why now / why ARPsych readers】<two sentences>
【If suggesting】coverage gap + balanced author lineup
【If invited】assigned length + due date (confirmed?) + scope boundary
【Author roles】order + contribution split
【Next step】→ arpsych-literature-synthesis (read the field systematically)
```