Currently, many top journals of psychology fail to specify any method for evaluating theories within submissions. The reason for this is not clear. Without a formal process, we cannot advance psychology as rapidly or as scientifically as we might. A growing body of literature, both philosophical and empirical, takes up the question of evaluating theories "on the page" with promising results. Here, we discuss a range of methods to identify some strengths and weaknesses. These include Integrative Propositional Analysis (IPA), a method for objectively evaluating the structure (complexity and interrelatedness) of theories that has proven effective in analyzing theories of management, organizations, ethics, systems, and policy. IPA is explained and applied to investigate a sample of theories of psychology. This study shows how we may identify theories that are more likely to be useful in practical application. Additionally, this study identifies benefits that might be gained through a rigorous integration of multiple theories. Importantly, this paper calls for the adoption of objective methods for reviewing theories within journal submissions that will accelerate the advancement of our field. IPA is put forward as a candidate for that role.