PoPS Editorial Strategy
Guides editorial communications, peer review preparation, and reviewer selection for Perspectives on Psychological Science submissions.
PoPS Editorial Strategy provides researchers with expert guidance for navigating the editorial and peer-review processes at Perspectives on Psychological Science (PoPS). It assists authors in scoping early proposals with handling editors, anticipating perspective-specific referee criteria (such as overarching theoretical frameworks and cross-camp balance), building objective reviewer slates, and managing attribution and conflicts of interest when reviewed authors serve as peer reviewers.
Key Features
01Structure proposal scope and author-editor communications for stand-alone and cooperative papers
02Identify and transparently manage conflicts of interest for handling editors
03Anticipate perspective-specific referee criteria across breadth, spine, and balanced coverage
04Construct objective reviewer slates representing cross-disciplinary and rival academic camps
05Evaluate coverage expansion requests against the paper's core argumentative spine
061,086 GitHub stars
Use Cases
01Scoping and pitching an article proposal to the PoPS Editor-in-Chief and handling editors
02Auditing manuscript claims and attributions to preempt pushback from surveyed researchers who may referee
03Curating an objective nomination list of at least five reviewers across integrated psychological areas