Editor Strategy — Working the Production Relationship (arpsych-editor-strategy)

When to trigger

• An invitation is accepted and you must manage scope, length, and milestones with the Editor
• The draft is drifting over the assigned length or past the due date
• The Editor or a Committee member has questions about scope or overlap with another review
• You need to understand the Annual Reviews production timeline before delivery

Who you are working with (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准)

ARPsych is run by its Editors (Susan T. Fiske since 2000, co-editing with Daniel L. Schacter for the 2026 volume; web-verified 2026-06-22, re-verify before relying) plus an Editorial Committee of associate editors and rotating members, supported by Annual Reviews production staff (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). Unlike a normal journal, the editorial relationship begins at invitation and runs through commissioning, scope-setting, peer review, and production. The Editor cares about three things you can manage proactively: scope fit within the volume, balance/accuracy (see arpsych-comprehensiveness-and-balance), and hitting length and deadline.

The levers you control

The production timeline (plan backward from it)

After delivery, the Annual Reviews process runs: Committee/peer review for accuracy, rigor, and balance → revision → copyediting to house style → proofs → publication in the annual volume (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). Implications:

• The delivered draft does not need to pre-conform to house reference style (production copyedits), but references must be complete and accurate.
• Build in time for proof checking, especially of figures Annual Reviews re-renders.
• ARPsych also offers early online publication ahead of the bound volume for many articles (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准) — confirm current practice on the author pages.

Communicating with the Editor

• Raise scope/length/permission issues early and in writing; surprises at delivery are the friction point.
• If you discover the topic is bigger than the assigned length, propose a narrowed organizing question rather than asking to double the length.
• Keep the Editor informed if a co-author drops or a deadline is at risk — annual scheduling leaves little slack.

Checklist

• [ ] Assigned length confirmed and the draft is tracking to it (figures/tables included)
• [ ] Due date calendared backward from the production deadline
• [ ] Scope boundary with neighboring commissioned reviews confirmed with the Editor
• [ ] Balance approach for any contested area signaled to the Editor early
• [ ] Reproduced-figure permissions flagged well ahead of delivery
• [ ] References complete and accurate (house style applied at production, not by you)
• [ ] Time reserved for peer-review revision and proof checking
• [ ] Early-online vs. volume publication practice re-checked on author pages

Anti-patterns

• Going silent until delivery, then revealing the draft is 50% over length
• Treating the due date as soft — a slip can cost a full annual cycle
• Pre-formatting to house reference style instead of ensuring reference accuracy
• Discovering a permissions problem at the proof stage
• Asking to expand length late instead of narrowing the organizing question
• Ignoring scope overlap with a sibling commissioned review in the same volume

Output format

【Length】assigned limit + on-track? (figures/tables included) Y/N
【Deadline】due date calendared from production deadline? Y/N
【Scope boundary】overlap with neighboring reviews confirmed? Y/N
【Balance signal】contested-area plan shared with Editor? Y/N | N/A
【Permissions】reproduced-figure clearances flagged early? Y/N
【Timeline】peer-review + proof time reserved? Y/N
【Next step】→ arpsych-submission (final delivery preflight)