Literature Synthesis — Reading the Whole Field (arpsych-literature-synthesis)

When to trigger

• An invitation is in hand and the reading must start in earnest
• The user has "read a lot" but has no system for tracking what is covered
• Coverage gaps are likely (one paradigm, one lab, or one decade dominates the notes)
• An embedded meta-analysis is planned and the search must be documentable

Coverage is the price of admission, not the contribution

ARPsych readers trust a review to be comprehensive within its frame and current to the frontier. A reviewer caught missing a major line of work loses authority instantly. But coverage is the floor: the contribution is the framework you impose later (arpsych-organizing-framework). This skill builds an evidence base broad and well-recorded enough that (a) nothing important is missed and (b) you can later be selective in prose without being incomplete in coverage.

A systematic, documentable search

Even a narrative review benefits from a near-systematic search you can describe:

1. Seed set — the canonical and recent agenda-setting papers you already know.
2. Forward + backward citation chasing — who cites the seeds; whom the seeds cite.
3. Database sweep — PsycINFO/APA PsycNet, Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar with explicit terms.
4. Specialty + adjacent venues — the relevant primary journals AND adjacent fields (neuro, economics, linguistics) the topic touches.
5. Stopping rule — saturation: new searches surface only papers already in the matrix.
6. Record the protocol — terms, databases, dates, inclusion/exclusion — even for a narrative review; mandatory if you report a meta-analysis (→ arpsych-transparency-and-reproducibility).

Document the search as you go, not from memory afterward. ARPsych's transparency expectations and any meta-analytic component both depend on a search log you can reproduce (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).

The evidence matrix (one row per study/finding)

Build a structured table — not a pile of PDFs. Useful columns:

Column	Why
Construct / question	lets you later sort papers into framework cells
Population / paradigm	surfaces over-reliance on one method or sample (WEIRD bias)
Design + strength	feeds credibility weighting in arpsych-comprehensiveness-and-balance
Effect / finding (+ direction, size if available)	enables quantitative synthesis
Replication status	flags shaky vs. robust effects (post-replication-crisis hygiene)
Lab / camp	exposes citation concentration and balance risks

The matrix is the bridge: its rows become framework cells, its columns become balance and credibility checks.

Checklist

• Seed set, citation chasing, database sweep, and adjacent venues all run
• Search terms, databases, and dates recorded (protocol, not memory)
• Saturation reached (new searches return only known papers)
• Evidence matrix built: one row per study/finding with the columns above
• Replication status noted for contested effects
• Lab/camp column reveals whether coverage concentrates on a few groups
• Non-English / non-WEIRD and cross-disciplinary work checked for, not assumed away
• Coverage is current to the frontier AND anchored to foundational work

Anti-patterns

• Reading by familiarity (only your own subfield's journals) — guarantees coverage gaps
• No search protocol — cannot satisfy ARPsych transparency or support a meta-analysis
• A pile of summaries instead of a structured matrix — no path to a framework
• Ignoring replication status, so debunked effects are reviewed as established
• Stopping when tired rather than at saturation
• Treating coverage as the contribution (it is the floor, not the spine)

Output format

【Search protocol】seeds + databases + terms + dates + stopping rule (recorded?)
【Coverage】subfields/paradigms/adjacent fields swept; saturation reached? Y/N
【Evidence matrix】#rows; columns include design, replication status, lab/camp? Y/N
【Gaps / concentration】where coverage thins or over-concentrates
【Meta-analysis planned?】Y/N → if Y, route to transparency skill
【Next step】→ arpsych-organizing-framework (turn the matrix into a spine)