mind
GitHub用于评估分析哲学稿件是否符合Mind期刊标准，涵盖定位、原创性、论证严谨性及双盲规范。
Trigger Scenarios
作者指定Mind或需评估投稿契合度
需强化论点结构及反驳以符合高标准
在Mind与其他综合性期刊间做选择
需了解拒稿启发式规则
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill mind -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "mind",
"description": "Use when targeting Mind or deciding whether an analytic philosophy manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit as a leading generalist journal in the analytic\/UK tradition, the argument-rigor and originality bar, dialectical-engagement expectations, house style (full-length articles plus critical notices) and double-blind norms, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics."
}
Mind (mind)
Journal positioning
Mind, published by Oxford University Press for the Mind Association, is a leading generalist journal in the analytic tradition with deep roots in the UK philosophical scene and a long historical strength in philosophy of mind, language, and logic, alongside metaphysics, epistemology, and value theory. 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, developed at the length the argument requires. Mind also publishes critical notices — substantial, argument-driven engagements with important books — distinct from short book notes. A competent survey, a small variation on a familiar move, or a paper that dodges its 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 Mind author instructions.
When to trigger
- The author names Mind for an analytic-philosophy article and wants a fit/framing check.
- An argument must be developed and tightened — thesis, structure, and engagement with the strongest objections — to clear a leading generalist bar.
- The author is choosing between Mind and another big generalist venue, or weighing a critical notice versus a full article.
- The author needs Mind's originality/rigor bar and desk-reject heuristics.
Scope & topic fit
- Philosophy of mind and philosophy of language, including their intersections with cognitive science where the contribution is philosophical.
- Logic and the philosophy of logic, and formally informed metaphysics and epistemology.
- Metaphysics and epistemology broadly, including foundational questions of method.
- Value theory — ethics, metaethics, and political philosophy — argued with analytic rigor.
- History of philosophy when it makes a live philosophical (not merely exegetical) contribution.
- Critical notices: sustained, argumentative engagement with a significant recent book.
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 and answered, not deflected.
- Distinctions are drawn precisely, key terms are defined, and the argument's logical form is transparent with independently motivated premises.
- Scholarly engagement is current and fair, locating the contribution in the live literature without padding.
- Examples, counterexamples, and thought experiments do genuine argumentative work.
- Formal apparatus, where used, is deployed to sharpen rather than ornament the argument.
Structure & house style
- Long full-length analytic article with a sustained argument, or a substantial critical notice; re-check current length expectations and article types on the live guide.
- 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; footnotes carry qualifications and secondary dialectic.
- Double-blind review: anonymize the manuscript (self-citations and acknowledgements) per current policy.
- Prose is precise and economical; the central claim should remain legible to generalist analytic readers outside the immediate sub-area.
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 Mind page you checked. - Search the live site for "Mind journal submission guidelines" (Oxford University Press / Mind Association) and follow the current version.
- Re-check article types (articles, discussions, critical notices), 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.
- The article type (full article vs. critical notice) matches what the manuscript actually is.
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 opaque logical structure.
- Formalism that adds apparatus without adding argumentative force.
- Narrow sub-area interest with no general philosophical stake (better at a specialist venue).
- A book review mis-pitched as a critical notice, or exegesis with no live contribution.
Re-routing decision
- Equally strong generalist analytic article →
the-philosophical-review/nous/the-journal-of-philosophy. - Moral, political, or normative-ethics focus →
ethics/philosophy-and-public-affairs. - Short, focused argument or counterexample →
analysis. - Aesthetics / philosophy of art →
the-journal-of-aesthetics-and-art-criticism. - Argument about historical method or the epistemology of inquiry →
history-and-theory.
Output format
[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Mind
[Area] <closest philosophical sub-area; or critical notice>
[Thesis] <the original claim in one line>
[Argument/engagement] <does the rigor + objection-handling clear a leading generalist bar?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <length / article type / citation style / anonymization / preprint policy>
[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 12:57
