Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› the-philosophical-review
the-philosophical-review
GitHub用于评估分析哲学手稿是否符合《The Philosophical Review》的发表标准。提供契合度检查、论证严谨性与原创性评估、对立观点回应审查及拒稿启发式规则，辅助作者优化论点与定位。
Trigger Scenarios
作者指定目标期刊为 The Philosophical Review 并寻求契合度或框架调整建议
需要提升论证清晰度、结构及最强反对意见的回应以符合顶级综合期刊标准
在 The Philosophical Review 与其他顶尖期刊间进行选刊决策
需要了解该期刊的原创性/严谨性门槛及快速拒稿启发式规则
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill the-philosophical-review -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "the-philosophical-review",
"description": "Use when targeting The Philosophical Review or deciding whether an analytic philosophy manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit, the argument-rigor and originality bar, dialectical-engagement expectations, house style and double-blind norms, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics."
}
The Philosophical Review (the-philosophical-review)
Journal positioning
The Philosophical Review is one of the most selective generalist journals in analytic philosophy, publishing full-length articles of the highest quality across all core areas — metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of mind and language, ethics, and the history of philosophy treated philosophically. Its defining expectation is a rigorous, original argument that advances a live debate: a clearly stated thesis, a valid and carefully defended line of reasoning, and decisive engagement with the strongest opposing positions. A competent survey, a small variation on a known move, or a paper that does not engage the best objections is a poor fit. This skill is a fit / venue-selection / re-framing aid. It does not replace the journal's current submission guidelines. Before submitting, re-check the live Philosophical Review author instructions.
When to trigger
- The author names The Philosophical Review for an analytic-philosophy article and wants a fit/framing check.
- An argument must be sharpened — thesis, structure, and engagement with the strongest objections — to meet a top generalist venue's bar.
- The author is choosing between The Philosophical Review and Noûs, The Journal of Philosophy, or a sub-area specialist journal.
- The author needs the journal's originality/rigor bar and desk-reject heuristics.
Scope & topic fit
- Core analytic philosophy: metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, logic, and their intersections.
- Ethics and metaethics, and political philosophy treated with analytic rigor.
- History of philosophy when it makes a philosophical (not merely exegetical) contribution to a current debate.
- Foundational work in philosophy of science, mathematics, or action when the argument is of general philosophical interest.
- Articles that introduce or decisively advance a distinction, argument, or position.
Method & evidence bar
- The contribution is an original thesis defended by a valid, carefully structured argument; the central claim and its dialectical stakes are stated early and clearly.
- The strongest objections and rival views are engaged head-on, not deflected; the paper earns its conclusion against the best opposition.
- Distinctions are drawn precisely; key terms are defined; the argument's logical form is transparent and its premises independently motivated.
- Scholarly engagement is current and fair, situating the contribution in the live literature without padding.
- Examples and thought experiments do real argumentative work and are not merely illustrative.
Structure & house style
- Full-length analytic article with a sustained argument; re-check current length expectations and article types on the live guide.
- The thesis and roadmap appear early; sections build the argument step by step; objections-and-replies are integral, not appended.
- Citation follows the journal's current style (typically author-date with a reference list); footnotes carry qualifications and secondary dialectic.
- Double-blind review: anonymize the manuscript (self-citations and acknowledgements) per current policy.
- Prose is precise and economical; technical apparatus is used only where it earns its keep.
Official-submission checklist
- Before giving submission-ready advice, read
../../resources/source-basis.mdand../../resources/official-source-map.md; start from the press/society anchors, then cite the current Philosophical Review page you checked. - Search the live site for "The Philosophical Review submission guidelines" and follow the current version.
- Re-check article types, length expectations, and the abstract requirement.
- Confirm the citation/style format and anonymization for double-blind review.
- Re-check the journal's policy on prior presentation/preprints, simultaneous submission, and AI-use disclosure.
- If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.
Pre-submission self-check
- There is a single, clearly stated, original thesis with explicit dialectical stakes.
- The argument is valid and each premise is independently motivated and defined.
- The strongest objections and rival positions are engaged and answered, not deflected.
- Engagement with the current literature is fair, current, and non-padding.
- The manuscript is anonymized and follows the current citation style.
- Examples/thought experiments do genuine argumentative work.
Common desk-reject triggers
- A survey or a small variation on a familiar move with no original advance.
- An argument that ignores or only gestures at the strongest objections.
- Imprecise theses, undefined key terms, or an argument whose logical form is unclear.
- Narrow sub-area interest with no general philosophical stake (better at a specialist venue).
- Exegesis with no philosophical contribution to a live debate.
Re-routing decision
- Equally strong generalist analytic article →
nous/the-journal-of-philosophy. - Moral, political, or normative-ethics focus →
ethics/philosophy-and-public-affairs. - Broad philosophy, especially in the UK tradition →
mind. - Short, focused argument or counterexample →
analysis. - Aesthetics / philosophy of art →
the-journal-of-aesthetics-and-art-criticism.
Output format
[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] The Philosophical Review
[Area] <closest philosophical sub-area>
[Thesis] <the original claim in one line>
[Argument/engagement] <does the rigor + objection-handling clear a top generalist bar?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <length / citation style / anonymization / preprint policy>
[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 12:58
