nous
GitHub辅助分析哲学稿件评估是否适合投稿至Noû斯期刊。提供大三大综合期刊的定位对比、原创性与严谨性标准、辩证互动要求及拒稿启发式规则，用于稿件适配度检查、论证强化和选刊决策。
Trigger Scenarios
作者询问分析哲学文章是否适合Noûs
需要提升论点以符合顶级期刊标准
在大三综合期刊间选择目标
查询Noûs的原创性门槛与拒稿规则
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill nous -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "nous",
"description": "Use when targeting Noûs or deciding whether an analytic philosophy manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit as one of the big-three generalist venues, the argument-rigor and originality bar, dialectical-engagement expectations, house style and double-blind norms, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics."
}
Noûs (nous)
Journal positioning
Noûs is one of the big-three generalist journals in analytic philosophy, sitting alongside The Philosophical Review and The Journal of Philosophy and publishing full-length articles of the highest quality across every core area — metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, logic, and value theory. Its defining expectation is a rigorous, original argument that moves a live debate forward: a sharply stated thesis, a valid and carefully defended line of reasoning, and head-on engagement with the strongest rival views. Because Noûs, The Philosophical Review, and The Journal of Philosophy overlap heavily, venue choice is usually a matter of fit, area conventions, and house feel rather than topic. A competent survey, an incremental tweak to a familiar move, or a paper that sidesteps 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 Noûs author instructions.
When to trigger
- The author names Noûs for an analytic-philosophy article and wants a fit/framing check.
- An argument must be tightened — thesis, structure, and engagement with the strongest objections — to clear a top generalist bar.
- The author is deciding among the big-three generalist venues (Noûs, The Philosophical Review, The Journal of Philosophy) and needs fit/area-convention guidance.
- The author needs Noûs's originality/rigor bar and desk-reject heuristics.
Scope & topic fit
- Core analytic philosophy: metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, and logic, including work that crosses these areas.
- Value theory — ethics, metaethics, and political philosophy — argued with analytic rigor and broad significance.
- Foundational philosophy of science, mathematics, probability, or action when the stake is of general philosophical interest.
- Formal and technically informed work where the formalism earns its keep in the argument.
- History of philosophy when it makes a live philosophical contribution, not mere exegesis.
- Articles that establish, refine, or decisively challenge 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.
- The strongest objections and rival views are engaged directly and answered, not deflected or relegated to a footnote.
- 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.
- Technical apparatus, where used, is deployed to sharpen rather than decorate the argument.
Structure & house style
- Full-length analytic article with a sustained argument; 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 (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; 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 Noûs page you checked. - Search the live site for "Noûs submission guidelines" and follow the current Wiley 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 and any formalism 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 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).
- Exegesis with no live philosophical contribution.
Re-routing decision
- Equally strong generalist analytic article →
the-philosophical-review/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] Noûs
[Area] <closest philosophical sub-area>
[Thesis] <the original claim in one line>
[Argument/engagement] <does the rigor + objection-handling clear a big-three 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 12:57
