Evaluaciones externas y valoraciones Vol. 23 Núm. 2 (2026)

External Review Report – Vol. 23, No. 2 (2026) | Article #105103

Psychology and cis-realism

 Ian A. Parker

 Section: Miscellany

 

EDITORIAL REPORT

The manuscript introduces a provocative and potentially generative concept in "cis-realism" and "spychology." However, significant work is needed to substantiate claims, contextualize the specific geographical case studies for an international readership, and align the theoretical contribution with the framework of the special issue. While you critique the "cis-realist" backlash, the manuscript needs to explicitly connect this backlash with emerging assemblages or fluid political aggregations within a governmental logic (i.e., further develop the notion of psychology beyond the analogy).

Substantiation of Claims: Both reviewers note that the text relies on "critical statements" rather than grounded arguments. Strong statements: psychology doing "terrible things" or being "never scientific" could benefit from historical and bibliographical evidence. There may be a distinction between the discipline as a whole and specific reactionary movements.

Essay vs. Article: Reviewer 2 points out that the piece "reads closer to an opinion essay than an academic article" as theoretical debates must be further unpacked. For instance, the link between cognition, behaviourism, and CBT may be contested and needs a more nuanced, referenced explanation.

Critical Psychology History: Reviewer 1 notes the absence of the long trajectory of critical psychology. Failing to cite the existing critiques of the "psy-disciplines" weakens your argument that this is a new or specific "cis-realist" turn.

The UK Context: The manuscript relies heavily on UK-specific entities (Cass Review, GIDS, Tavistock, BPS Watch, Spiked Online) without sufficient explanation for an international audience. It could be helpful if the manuscript gave a further context for who these actors are, what the events were, and why they are globally relevant examples of "cis-realism."

Data/Source Usage: Reviewer 1 suggests illustrating general claims with specific examples instead of broader generalisations, both in the reactionary and progressive psychological perspectives.

Citations: Parker (2022) and Pearce (2024) are listed in the References but are not cited in the body of the text, and ensure that all references match the APA 7th edition guidelines required by the journal.

Length and Depth: Reviewers considered the text rather short and could benefit from further expansion.

To proceed with the publication process, please submit a revised version that addresses the following:

  • Contextualize for an International Audience:Dedicate space to explaining the specific UK context (Cass Review, BPS Watch). Describe these events clearly as case studies of the "cis-realist" phenomenon, rather than assuming reader knowledge.
  • Connect the article with the Special Issue: connect the concept of "cis-realism" and “spychology” to the Special Issue theme: "The End of Identity."
  • Substantiate Generalizations:Remove or rigorously support sweeping claims about the discipline of psychology. Cite specific historical or contemporary examples of the mechanisms you denounce.
  • Engage with Critical Psychology:Incorporate references to the history of critical and feminist psychology to show where your argument sits within the existing literature.
  • Fix Citations:Ensure Parker (2022) and Pearce (2024) are cited in the text or removed from the list.
  • Expand the Analysis:Develop Section 8 ("Spychology") further, as this was highlighted as a strong but underdeveloped contribution.

 

Peer Review Reports

Reviewer A

Please, comment on the most relevant aspects (positive points and areas to improve) of the reviewed article.
(Your comments will be published if the article is accepted)

The manuscript presents an interesting, incisive, and highly topical contribution that aligns exceptionally well with both the thematic focus of the special issue and the broader concerns of Teknokultura. Its critical depth and the social relevance of the critique it offers are particularly noteworthy, as is its strong grounding in ongoing theoretical conversations within the discipline. The manuscript also compellingly highlights the importance of the forms of critique emerging from intersectional feminist theories and practices, which adds significant analytical and political value to the work.

Would you suggest any changes or make any recommendations to improve the quality of the article?
(Your comments will be published if the article is accepted)

That said, I believe the article would benefit from several improvements that could greatly strengthen its scholarly impact. First, although the discussion engages with current and relevant theoretical debates, these connections are not always made explicit. At present, the piece reads closer to an opinion essay than an academic article. I encourage the authors to unpack the theoretical debates more fully and incorporate additional scholarly references that can guide readers through the arguments being proposed and offer pathways for deeper engagement.

Second, while the manuscript addresses issues that are clearly situated in the specific context of the UK, this context is not sufficiently explained for an international audience. It would be important not only to clarify the acronyms of disciplinary or academic institutions mentioned, but also to make explicit the events to which the text alludes. Critical references to recent developments should be spelled out more clearly, including concise descriptions of what occurred and the roles of the collective actors involved.

With these revisions, the contribution of the article will be significantly enhanced and will undoubtedly stimulate substantial reflection and future debate within the field.

 

Reviewer B

Please, comment on the most relevant aspects (positive points and areas to improve) of the reviewed article.
(Your comments will be published if the article is accepted)

While I find the aims and some of the arguments in this piece interesting and provocative, I feel that the claims need to be more convincingly demonstrated and illustrated.
This is the case especially in the instances of sweeping (critical) statements about 'psychology' (does this also include the almost 40 year long trajectory of critical psychology and critical feminist psychology?), and 'psychoanalysis' (does this also include the critiques of transphobia from within psychoanalytic research?) and even about the supposed link between cognition and behaviourism as psychological fields of study/research and the practice of CBT (which is by no means so securely affiliated with cognition and behaviourism as is suggested in the article).

Would you suggest any changes or make any recommendations to improve the quality of the article?
(Your comments will be published if the article is accepted)

  • I would suggest unpacking each of the sections 1-5 which will benefit hugely from a more secure and convincing scene-setting; citing some experiments/research and examples of bad psychology (i.e., the one that does 'terrible things' to people etc) which is under critique will lend to stronger and more compelling argument.
  • By the same token, references to 'nice' or 'progressive' psychologists should be cited and tell us why they are nice or progressive.
  • There is a long-standing critique of the psy-sciences/scientific discourses widely available but the author makes no reference to any of this. Why?
    It isn't enough to just pay lip-service to feminist psychology; the actual work achieved could remarked upon.
  • The arguments that build over sections 5, 6, and 7 are by far the strongest and most coherent, and I really like the section on Spychology! But this section 8 could be expanded and a consideration of each claim and whether it stands up all by itself or might benefit from the support of some great critical citations.

 

The text was revised incorporating the suggestions of the reviewers and the editorial team.