Review Process (jcp-review-process)

When to trigger

• A decision letter arrived and you must read what the editor actually wants
• You are weighing whether the requested revision is feasible (new studies?) or a polite reject
• You want realistic odds before submitting, or before investing in another study
• Reviewers raise the same complaint ("the process isn't established") and you need a strategy
• Deciding whether to push back, comply, or withdraw and reroute to a sibling

How JCP review works

A JCP submission goes to the editor (EiC David Wooten through 2026, with Co-Editors Rajesh Bagchi and Aparna Labroo; Bagchi becomes EiC for 2027–2029 — verified 2026-06-22, re-verify the masthead), who may desk-reject for fit (no psychological process, wrong outlet, out of scope) or assign it to an area/associate editor who recruits reviewers — typically several SCP-community experts under double-blind review (confirm the exact model on the current Wiley/myscp author page). The editor synthesizes the reviews into a decision: reject, major revision (R&R), minor revision, or accept. As at peer experimental journals, the most common positive outcome is a major revision, and at JCP that very often means running new studies — not just reanalysis — to nail down the process.

Outcomes to plan for:

Reading the letter for the binding constraint

• "Effect in search of a process / mechanism unclear" — the central JCP demand. Expect to add a manipulated-mediator or moderation-of-process study. This is the make-or-break.
• "Alternative explanation not ruled out" — design a study (or moderation) that your process predicts and the rival does not.
• "Underpowered / not pre-registered / robustness" — replicate at higher power, pre-register the confirmatory follow-up.
• "Stimulus-bound / generalizability" — add operationalizations, populations, or a consequential DV.
• Editor's own framing — weight the editor's summary above any single reviewer; that is the contract for the revision.

Calibrating effort and timeline

• A JCP R&R commonly requires months of new data collection; budget the studies before promising them.
• If the editor signals the process concern is fundamental (not "add a study" but "the mechanism may be wrong"), assess honestly whether a fix exists before sinking another study in.
• If two strong reviewers disagree, let the editor's letter arbitrate; do not try to satisfy a reviewer the editor has discounted.
• A polite "we'd consider a substantially different paper" is a reject; treat it as one.

Checklist

• [ ] You have identified the editor's binding concern, not just listed all reviewer points
• [ ] You have judged whether the R&R needs new studies and which ones
• [ ] For each major comment, there is a feasible study or analysis (not just prose)
• [ ] The process/alternative-explanation demands have concrete experimental answers planned
• [ ] You have a realistic timeline for new data collection before committing
• [ ] You can tell an honest R&R from a soft reject and act accordingly

Anti-patterns

• Reanalysis-only response to a "mechanism unclear" letter that clearly needs a new study
• Reviewer-by-reviewer firefighting that ignores the editor's synthesized priority
• Over-promising studies you cannot run in the revision window
• Appealing a fit desk-reject instead of rerouting to the right outlet
• Treating a soft reject as an R&R and pouring months into a paper the editor has closed

Output format

【Decision type】desk reject / reject / major R&R / minor / accept
【Editor's binding concern】the one thing the revision must fix
【New studies needed?】yes (which) / no (reanalysis suffices)
【Alternative-explanation plan】study or moderation that adjudicates
【Timeline realism】can the studies run in the window? [Y/N]
【Go / no-go】revise / reroute / withdraw
【Next skill】jcp-rebuttal