Comprehensiveness & Balance (arpsych-comprehensiveness-and-balance)

When to trigger

• The framework is set but coverage may be lopsided toward one camp or method
• The author's own work is cited far more than its share of the field
• Contested effects are presented as settled (or vice versa) without weighing evidence
• A rival theory or a contradicting literature is under-represented or dismissed in a line

Why balance is editorial currency at ARPsych

ARPsych authors are chosen partly for the standing to be even-handed, and the Committee assesses delivered reviews for accuracy, rigor, and balance (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). A review of record cannot read as advocacy for the author's lab or favored theory. The job here is to audit the draft against four failure modes specific to high-stakes psychology reviews.

1. Coverage balance (across labs and paradigms)

Use the evidence matrix's lab/camp and paradigm columns. If three groups or one method dominate the citations, ask whether that reflects the field or the author's reading. Actively seek the work you find least congenial — the strongest version of the opposing view, not a strawman.

2. Credibility weighting (not vote-counting)

Do not tally "12 studies found X, 4 found not-X." Weigh by design strength, sample, and replication status. A single large, preregistered, multi-site study can outweigh a dozen small underpowered ones. Post-replication-crisis, ARPsych readers expect you to flag effects that failed to replicate rather than reviewing them as established (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).