Use when designing and documenting the systematic literature search for a Psychological Bulletin review or meta-analysis — databases, search strings, grey literature, deduplication, and a PRISMA-compliant records flow. Builds a reproducible search; it does not screen or code studies.
Scanned 9/12/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add thedixitjain/the-mega-skill-library --skill psychbull-literature-search-strategy --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Psychbull Literature Search Strategy?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/thedixitjain-psychbull-literature-search-strategy)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: psychbull-literature-search-strategy
description: "Use when designing and documenting the systematic literature search for a Psychological Bulletin review or meta-analysis — databases, search strings, grey literature, deduplication, and a PRISMA-compliant records flow. Builds a reproducible search; it does not screen or code studies."
category: backend-and-data
source_repo: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
source_path: "Psychological-Bulletin-Skills/skills/psychbull-literature-search-strategy/SKILL.md"
source_url: https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/blob/HEAD/Psychological-Bulletin-Skills/skills/psychbull-literature-search-strategy/SKILL.md
---
# Systematic Search Strategy (psychbull-literature-search-strategy)
A Psychological Bulletin synthesis stands or falls on its **search**: it must be **systematic,
exhaustive, and reproducible**, and **all systematic reviews must conform to PRISMA**. The goal is
that an independent team could re-run your search and recover the same pool. This skill designs and
documents the search; eligibility decisions and coding live in `psychbull-inclusion-and-coding`.
## When to trigger
- Designing the search before screening begins
- A reviewer asks whether the search was exhaustive or reproducible
- Building the **PRISMA flow** counts (identified → screened → eligible → included)
- Updating the search before resubmission
## What an exhaustive search covers
1. **Multiple databases, not one.** At minimum APA **PsycINFO**, plus **MEDLINE/PubMed**, **Web of
Science**, **Scopus**, and discipline-specific sources (ERIC, EMBASE) as relevant.
2. **Controlled vocabulary + free text.** Combine thesaurus terms (APA Thesaurus / MeSH) with
free-text synonyms; use Boolean logic and field tags deliberately.
3. **Grey literature & publication-bias mitigation.** Dissertations (ProQuest), preprints (PsyArXiv),
conference programs, registries, and **author contact** for unpublished/in-press data — to limit
the file-drawer problem before the bias analysis ever runs.
4. **Backward & forward citation chasing.** Reference lists of included studies and prior reviews;
forward citations (cited-by) of key papers.
5. **Supplementary tools.** Google Scholar as a supplement (not a primary database, given non-reproducible ranking).
## Documenting for PRISMA / PRISMA-S
- Record, **per source**: the **exact search string**, the **database/platform and date searched**,
and the **number of hits**. This is the PRISMA-S standard.
- Track the flow: **records identified → duplicates removed → titles/abstracts screened → full texts
assessed → studies included**, with **counts and exclusion reasons** at each stage.
- Save the raw exports; deduplicate in a reference manager (Zotero/EndNote) or screening tool
(Covidence/Rayyan) and log the dedup count.
## Anti-patterns
- Searching only one database, or only published, peer-reviewed work (biases the pool)
- Reporting "we searched the literature" with no strings, dates, or counts
- A search that cannot be reproduced because the strings were never recorded
- Letting search scope drift silently from the registered protocol without noting the change
- Skipping grey literature, then being surprised by publication-bias findings
## What search referees verify at the APA flagship
A Psychological Bulletin synthesis lives or dies on whether an independent team could rebuild its study
pool. Reviewers at the APA's flagship review journal apply an explicit search bar:
| Search expectation | Pass | Desk-reject / major-revision trigger |
|--------------------|------|--------------------------------------|
| Database breadth | PsycINFO + several others + discipline sources | A single database, usually PsycINFO alone |
| Strings recorded | Per-source string, platform, and date logged | "We searched the literature" with no strings |
| Grey literature | Dissertations, preprints, author contact | Published peer-reviewed work only |
| Citation chasing | Backward and forward, documented | None; pool is whatever the keywords returned |
| PRISMA flow | Counts and exclusion reasons reconcile | Numbers that don't add up to the included k |
## Worked vignette — documenting the search
*Illustrative counts only.* The self-affirmation synthesis (final k = 42) builds its PRISMA flow this
way under this skill's rules:
- **Databases**: PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, and ERIC, each searched on a stated date
with its exact thesaurus-plus-free-text string recorded per PRISMA-S.
- **Grey literature**: ProQuest dissertations and PsyArXiv preprints searched; authors of 11 in-progress
trials contacted, yielding 3 unpublished datasets — narrowing the file drawer before bias diagnostics.
- **Citation chasing**: backward (reference lists of included studies and two prior reviews) and forward
(cited-by of the 5 anchor papers) added 7 records the keyword search missed.
- **PRISMA flow**: 2,310 identified → 1,640 after dedup → 1,640 screened → 188 full-text →
42 included, with exclusion reasons tallied so the final box equals the analyzed k.
## Referee pushback → venue-specific fix
- *"The search isn't exhaustive."* → Add the missing databases and grey-literature sources; document
author contact for unpublished data.
- *"There are PRISMA gaps."* → Supply per-source strings, dates, and hit counts, and make the flow
diagram reconcile end to end.
- *"This search can't be reproduced."* → Record and deposit the exact strings so an independent team
recovers the same pool; treat Google Scholar as a supplement, not a primary source.
## Output format
```
【Databases】list (PsycINFO + …) with date searched
【Strings】per-database string recorded? [Y/N]
【Grey literature】dissertations / preprints / author contact? [Y/N]
【Citation chasing】backward + forward done? [Y/N]
【PRISMA counts】identified / dedup / screened / full-text / included
【Reproducible】independent team could re-run? [Y/N]
【Next】psychbull-inclusion-and-coding
```
## Supplementary resources
- [`../../resources/external_tools.md`](../../resources/external_tools.md) — databases, screening managers (Covidence/Rayyan), PRISMA-S
- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — PRISMA requirement for systematic reviews
---
**Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `Psychological-Bulletin-Skills/skills/psychbull-literature-search-strategy/SKILL.md`
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!