Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› phg-review-process
phg-review-process
GitHub解析人文地理学进展评论期刊的双盲审稿机制、决策类别及桌拒触发条件。用于投稿前压力测试、解读决定信或评估批评严重性，旨在预判审稿人异议并校准干预策略，不直接起草稿件。
Trigger Scenarios
投稿前预判审稿异议
解读决定信类别与语气
评估审稿意见是否可修复
校准该刊物的干预野心
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill phg-review-process -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "phg-review-process",
"description": "Use when anticipating how a Progress in Human Geography (PiHG) review essay will be judged — the double-anonymous review model, decision categories, and the desk-reject triggers specific to a review journal. Explains what to expect; it does not draft the manuscript or the response letter."
}
Review Process (phg-review-process)
Understanding how PiHG judges a submission lets you pre-empt the objections a review essay draws. PiHG is double-anonymous, and its reviewers are typically senior figures in the sub-field who know the literature you are reviewing intimately. They ask a different question than an empirical journal's referees: not "are the methods sound?" but "does this command the field, and does it move it forward?"
When to trigger
- Before submission, to stress-test against likely reviewer objections
- Interpreting a decision letter's category and tone (then route to
phg-rebuttal) - Deciding whether a critique in review is fixable or fatal
- Calibrating how ambitious the intervention can be for this venue
What PiHG reviewers weigh
| Criterion | The question | Where to fix pre-submission |
|---|---|---|
| Command of the literature | Is coverage complete, current, fair, and correctly attributed? | phg-literature-positioning |
| Synthesis | Do the sources add up to one argument, or is this a list? | phg-argument-synthesis |
| Critical intervention | Does it say something the field does not already know? | phg-critical-intervention |
| Conceptual clarity | Is the organizing concept clear and load-bearing? | phg-theory-building |
| Forward contribution | Does it leave the field with a usable agenda? | phg-contribution-framing |
| Fit & genre | Is it a review, not an empirical study? Right length/style? | phg-topic-selection, phg-writing-style |
Desk-reject triggers (review-journal-specific)
An editor can decline before review. The common triggers for a review essay:
- An empirical study in disguise — findings are the spine; PiHG does not publish empirical results.
- A summary, not a synthesis — an annotated bibliography with no argument.
- No critical intervention — comprehensive but toothless; nothing the field learns.
- Parochial or dated coverage — a partial, Global-North-only, or years-behind literature.
- Out of scope / niche — a settled or narrow topic with no live debate or disciplinary stakes.
- An uncommissioned "Progress Report" — that genre is invited, not open.
- Over-length or wrong style — well past the ~8,000-word inclusive cap; non-Harvard.
Likely reviewer objections → the pre-emption
| Objection | The fix before submission |
|---|---|
| "This is a summary, not a synthesis." | Rebuild the spine around sub-claims (phg-argument-synthesis). |
| "The critique is fair but adds nothing." | Sharpen the intervention and its "changes practice" test (phg-critical-intervention). |
| "You missed literature X / misattributed Y." | Widen and correct the corpus; steelman the camps (phg-literature-positioning). |
| "Coverage is Anglophone/Global-North only." | Engage work beyond the centers; name the limit honestly. |
| "The framework is unclear." | Make the concept load-bearing; add a conceptual exhibit (phg-theory-building, phg-tables-figures). |
| "So what for the field?" | Deliver a specific forward agenda (phg-contribution-framing). |
Decision categories (verify current wording on SAGE)
Typical outcomes: reject (often desk), major revision, minor revision, accept (rare on
first pass). A major revision is a scoped invitation, not a rejection — route to phg-rebuttal. As a
review journal, PiHG's revisions often ask you to strengthen the argument or widen the corpus, not to
run new analyses.
Checklist
- Coverage complete, current, fair, correctly attributed (command test)
- Synthesis, not summary; one-sentence thesis holds
- A genuine critical intervention that changes practice
- Organizing concept clear and load-bearing
- Forward agenda specific and portable
- Genre, length, and style correct — no desk-reject triggers left
Anti-patterns
- Treating PiHG referees as if they check methods rather than command of a field
- Submitting with a known coverage gap and hoping reviewers miss it (they wrote it)
- Reading a major revision as a rejection
- Assuming a review needs new data to answer reviewers — it usually needs a sharper argument
Output format
【Likely outcome risk】desk-reject / major / minor — and why
【Weakest criterion】command / synthesis / intervention / clarity / contribution / fit
【Desk-reject triggers present?】empirical-in-disguise / summary / toothless / parochial / scope [list]
【Pre-emptions】the fixes to make before submitting
【Next】phg-submission (if fixing) or phg-rebuttal (if decision received)
Supplementary resources
../../resources/official-source-map.md— review model and decision categories, with 待核实 markers../../resources/exemplars/library.md— the command-of-field and intervention bar to benchmark against
Version History
- 9f86f09 Current 2026-07-19 17:22
