devpsych-review-process — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited devpsych-review-process (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
Developmental Psychology combines theory-advancing selectivity with rigorous developmental-method scrutiny. The journal offers masked peer review, and editors and reviewers weigh not only whether the finding is interesting, but whether the developmental claim is credible (age vs. cohort, measurement invariance, attrition), whether reporting meets JARS, and whether transparency meets TOP. Knowing this lets you pre-empt the common rejection reasons.
identity out of the manuscript and out of shared links (see devpsych-submission). Masked review is intended to reduce bias against (e.g.) early-career or under-represented authors.
rigor, and fit; weak-fit or "not-developmental" papers may be declined without full review.
(age/cohort, invariance, attrition, power), analysis and JARS disclosure, and transparency.
unjustified opacity, or non-JARS reporting weaken a paper.
requests for invariance tests, attrition analyses, added robustness, or fuller disclosure.
Confirm current categories against the official guidelines, but recognize these shapes:
| Pattern an editor sees | Likely outcome | Pre-empt it by |
|---|---|---|
| Single-age finding framed as developmental | desk reject (fit) | add an age contrast/wave or reframe |
| Cross-sectional age effect, no cohort discussion | review with heavy R&R | address age vs. cohort up front |
| Trajectory interpreted with no invariance test | R&R or reject | report configural→metric→scalar first |
| Listwise deletion with non-trivial attrition | R&R | refit with FIML/MI; add attrition analysis |
| "Data available on request," no statement | returned for compliance | add a data-availability statement + DOIs |
Manuscript: preregistered three-wave growth study (N = 300; ages 4-8),
invariance established, FIML for attrition, open de-identified
data + scripts, identifiable video via Databrary.
Editor read: developmental significance (within-person growth + mechanism),
rigor (invariance + attrition handled), transparency (TOP-strong).
Likely route: external review, probable R&R for added robustness/disclosure.
Counter-case: same finding, one age group, cross-sectional, no invariance,
data on request → likely declined or not-developmental.strongest signal; it converts "interesting correlation" into "developmental finding."
access path reads better than silent opacity or unethical open posting.
links, or it is undone.
【Developmental significance】clear + theory-advancing? [Y/N]
【Change claim credible】age/cohort + invariance + attrition + power? [Y/N]
【JARS reporting】complete (ES+CI, exclusions, missing data)? [Y/N]
【Transparency (TOP)】data-availability + preregistration handled? [Y/N]
【Masked review】manuscript + links anonymized? [Y/N]
【Realistic outcome】reject / R&R / accept
【Next】devpsych-submission (or devpsych-rebuttal if decided)../../resources/official-source-map.md — masked review, JARS, TOP, and editorial policy../../resources/exemplars/library.md — verified exemplars showing credible developmental claims~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.