Use when building exhibits for a Perspectives on Psychological Science (PoPS) piece — the conceptual/framework figure, who-found-what summary tables, and (for meta-science) practice-prevalence or replication exhibits. Designs review/synthesis exhibits in APA style; it does not produce original-experiment result tables (a PoPS review reports no new study of its own).
Scanned 9/5/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill ppsych-tables-figures --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Ppsych Tables Figures?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/brycewang-stanford-ppsych-tables-figures)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: ppsych-tables-figures
description: Use when building exhibits for a Perspectives on Psychological Science (PoPS) piece — the conceptual/framework figure, who-found-what summary tables, and (for meta-science) practice-prevalence or replication exhibits. Designs review/synthesis exhibits in APA style; it does not produce original-experiment result tables (a PoPS review reports no new study of its own).
---
# Tables & Figures for a PoPS Piece (ppsych-tables-figures)
## When to trigger
- The synthesis is done and a cross-area reader needs to *see* the field at a glance
- A controversy or a body of effects would be clearer as a table than as prose
- The organizing framework would land better as a diagram (often the signature exhibit)
- For meta-science: prevalence of a practice, or a replication landscape, needs a figure
- You are tempted to paste an experiment's result table — but this is a perspective, not a primary paper
## The exhibit types a PoPS piece actually uses
PoPS exhibits **summarize or conceptualize across the literature**; they do not present the author's own experiment. The workhorses:
| Exhibit | Purpose | Design notes |
|---------|---------|--------------|
| **Conceptual / framework figure** | render the organizing spine — taxonomy tree, theory diagram, the reframe | usually the piece's signature exhibit; restate-able from memory by a non-specialist |
| **Who-found-what summary table** | one row per study/area: construct, design, sample, finding (direction + magnitude), credibility note | rows ordered by framework cells, not chronology; only comparable constructs share a column |
| **Practice-prevalence / meta-science exhibit** | bar/trend of how common a practice is; replication-outcome landscape; power distribution | only when the underlying coding is systematic and reproducible |
| **Forest / meta-analytic plot** | pooled effect with uncertainty | only when estimates are commensurable and you are doing a real meta-analysis |
## Building a credible summary table
- **Compare like with like.** Group studies that measure the *same construct*; never put non-comparable constructs in one magnitude column.
- **Carry uncertainty and credibility.** A finding column without effect sizes / CIs and a credibility note invites "but how good is that study?" — answer it in the table.
- **Self-contained APA captions.** A PoPS exhibit is read on its own by an outsider; the note states what the table shows, the unit, how to read a row, and the source studies (APA table/figure conventions).
- **Source every cell.** Each entry traces to a paper in the evidence matrix; an unsourced number in a field-shaping piece is indefensible.
## The conceptual figure is PoPS's signature
Because the readership is cross-area, the **framework figure carries disproportionate weight**: it is what a psychologist from another area remembers and reuses. Invest in one diagram that renders the spine cleanly — a taxonomy tree, a theory flow, or the reframe — so a reader who recalls nothing else can reconstruct the argument. Design for legibility in the published format and confirm current figure specs and color policy on the author pages (检索于 2026-06;以官网为准).
## Meta-science exhibits: show the practice, not a vibe
A reform argument lands when the reader *sees* the prevalence:
- A bar/trend of preregistration, open-data, or replication rates over time makes "the field is changing" concrete.
- A funnel plot or p-curve makes a publication-bias claim auditable rather than rhetorical.
- Every such exhibit must come from the **documented, reproducible coding** in `ppsych-literature-synthesis` — a prevalence figure with an undisclosed sampling frame is the very opacity reform opposes. Note the sampling frame and coding rules in the caption, and deposit the data/code (see `ppsych-transparency-and-reproducibility`).
## Reproduced vs. re-drawn figures
When a figure from a reviewed paper is central, prefer a **re-drawn synthesis figure** (your own panel placing several studies on common axes) over copying one paper's exhibit — it serves the argument and avoids consensus-by-accident. If you reproduce an original figure, attribute it and secure any permission SAGE requires (检索于 2026-06;以官网为准).
## Checklist
- [ ] Each exhibit synthesizes/conceptualizes across studies (no original-experiment result output)
- [ ] Summary-table rows ordered by framework cells; only comparable constructs share a column
- [ ] Finding columns carry effect sizes/CIs and a credibility note, not bare claims
- [ ] The conceptual figure renders the spine and is restate-able from memory by a non-specialist
- [ ] Any meta-science/forest exhibit pools only commensurable estimates; sampling frame disclosed
- [ ] Captions/notes are self-contained and APA-styled (what / unit / how to read / sources)
- [ ] Every cell sources to a paper in the evidence matrix; meta-science data/code depositable
- [ ] Figure specs / color policy / permissions confirmed against current SAGE author pages (volatile)
## Anti-patterns
- Pasting a regression/ANOVA table of the author's *own* new study — a perspective reports no new results
- A who-found-what table that pools incomparable constructs into one magnitude column
- A prevalence figure or forest plot with an undisclosed, unreproducible sampling frame
- Finding columns with no effect size or credibility note
- A decorative figure that does not encode the framework — wasting the signature exhibit
- Exhibits whose captions need the body text to be intelligible (fails the cross-area reader)
## Output format
```text
【Exhibit set】<list: conceptual figure / summary tables / prevalence / forest>
【Conceptual figure】renders the spine; restate-able from memory? Y/N
【Summary table】rows by framework cell; comparable constructs only; effect sizes + credibility? Y/N
【Meta-science exhibit】sampling frame disclosed; coding reproducible? Y/N · N/A
【Forest plot】pools only commensurable estimates (or omitted)? Y/N · N/A
【Sourcing】every cell traces to the evidence matrix? Y/N
【APA/specs/permissions】captions APA; specs + permissions confirmed on SAGE pages? Y/N · 待核实
【Next step】→ ppsych-writing-style (weave exhibits into the synthesis prose)
```
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!