Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› proghg-proposal-and-commissioning
proghg-proposal-and-commissioning
GitHub用于决定Progress in Human Geography投稿路径：选择受委托的进展报告或自主提交的综述/理论干预，并指导撰写提案或简报大纲。
Trigger Scenarios
确定PiHG投稿路线
受邀撰写进展报告
准备提交综述或理论干预文章
不确定内容类型及期望
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill proghg-proposal-and-commissioning -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "proghg-proposal-and-commissioning",
"description": "Use when choosing and executing the Progress in Human Geography (PiHG) intake route — a commissioned progress report vs. a submitted review or theoretical intervention — and shaping a proposal or report brief. Frames the route; it does not gather the literature (proghg-literature-synthesis) or run the submission preflight (proghg-submission)."
}
Intake & Commissioning (proghg-proposal-and-commissioning)
When to trigger
- The topic passed
proghg-topic-selectionand you must decide how it enters PiHG - You have been invited (or wish to be invited) to write a progress report on a subfield
- You have a major review essay or theoretical intervention you intend to submit
- You are unsure which PiHG content strand your piece fits and what each route expects
The two PiHG intake routes (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准)
This is the defining fork at PiHG — get it right or you write the wrong artefact. Unlike a pure commissioning journal (e.g. Annual Reviews) or a pure submission journal, PiHG runs both:
- Commissioned progress reports. The highly influential, much-cited progress reports are commissioned by the editors to give critical, regular summaries of work in the sub-disciplines of human geography (economic, urban, political, cultural, feminist, development, more-than-human, and more) (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). These are short (典型 ~1,500–4,000 字，按报告类型而定 — 待核实 on the author pages), tightly scoped, and usually written as a series by a standing reporter over consecutive years. You do not self-submit a progress report cold; the leverage is being known to the editors as the right reporter for a subfield.
- Submitted reviews and interventions. Major review essays, theoretical/conceptual interventions, opinions, perspectives, biographies, and key-publications pieces are submitted through the normal SAGE peer-review route and assessed on significance, coverage, and conceptual contribution (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). Several content strands — Perspectives, Reviews, Opinions, Biographies, Key Publications — shape the agenda-setting content; choose the strand before drafting (word limits differ by strand — 待核实, confirm on the author pages).
Decide the route first: a progress report is short, commissioned, part of a series, and surveys a year/period of a subfield; a review essay or intervention is longer, submitted, and makes a free-standing conceptual argument. They are different artefacts — do not draft a 1,500-word progress report and try to submit it as a review, or write an 8,000-word review essay expecting it to run as a progress report.
Anatomy of a strong intake pitch / report brief
| Element | What it must do | Applies to |
|---|---|---|
| The debate & animating argument | State the subfield and the argument about it (from proghg-topic-selection) |
both |
| Why a synthesis is needed now | Theoretical turn / new work / political fault line; the cross-subfield payoff | both |
| The conceptual spine | The organizing argument you would impose — not a chapter list | both (compressed for reports) |
| Coverage signal | The positions and traditions you would engage (breadth evidence) | both |
| Provisional argument | Your read of where the field is and where it should go (the payoff) | both |
| Standing & reflexivity | Why you can review fairly, and how you handle your own work and positionality | both |
| Strand / route | Which content strand (Perspectives/Reviews/Opinions/Biography/Key Publication) or that it is a commissioned report | route choice |
Checklist
- Route chosen explicitly: commissioned progress report vs. submitted review/intervention
- If a submitted piece, the content strand is identified (Perspectives/Reviews/Opinions/Biography/Key Publication)
- The pitch states the debate, why geographers across subfields will care, and the traditions engaged
- It leads with a conceptual spine, not a table of contents
- It demonstrates command of the literature across positions (not a single school)
- It names the provisional argument and a forward agenda (so the editors/referees see a payoff)
- It addresses reflexivity/balance, especially if the author is a contributor to the subfield
- Word envelope for the chosen strand/report confirmed on the official author pages (volatile — 待核实)
Anti-patterns
- Writing the wrong artefact: a report-length piece for a review slot, or vice versa
- Trying to self-submit a "progress report" cold — progress reports are commissioned by the editors
- A pitch that is a topic outline ("Section 3 will discuss X") with no conceptual spine
- A reference list that is a literature dump rather than evidence of a critically-weighed corpus
- Promising "comprehensive coverage" with no statement of what the review will argue or where the field should go
- Asserting editor names / strand word limits / process from memory rather than the live SAGE author pages
Output format
【Route】commissioned progress report / submitted review-or-intervention
【Strand】Perspectives / Reviews / Opinions / Biography / Key Publication / progress report
【Debate & argument】<one sentence>
【Why now】<theoretical turn / new work / political fault line>
【Proposed spine】<the conceptual organizing argument in 2–3 sentences>
【Coverage signal】<positions + traditions signalling breadth>
【Provisional argument + agenda】<what the review will argue and where the field should go>
【Reflexivity note】<how the author's own work / positionality is handled>
【Source status】strand limits / route / editor contact re-confirmed on SAGE pages? Y/N · 待核实
【Next step】→ proghg-literature-synthesis (begin systematic critical reading)
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 14:13
