Editor Strategy (proghg-editor-strategy)

When to trigger

• You are writing a commissioned progress report and coordinating with the editors on scope/series
• You have submitted a review or intervention and want to anticipate referee expectations
• The editor has asked you to expand, cut, or rebalance coverage
• You are calibrating how PiHG's two routes (commissioned vs. submitted) differ in the editor relationship

Who you are working with at PiHG

PiHG is edited by a team of editors (verified 2026-06-22: editor-in-chief Noel Castree, supported by additional editors and an international Editorial Advisory Board; re-confirm on the live SAGE page, as editors rotate), with SAGE handling production. Your relationship differs sharply by route:

Know which you are in: a progress report is a coordinated, short, recurring artefact; a submitted review is a competitive, free-standing argument.

How review differs for a review article

PiHG referees do not check an identification strategy or replicate results — there are none of the author's own. They evaluate the piece as a critical review:

Referees of a PiHG review are often the reviewed authors themselves — the people whose work and tradition are being appraised will read how you appraised them. This makes balance and accurate attribution strategic, not just ethical.

Scope negotiation with the editors

• Lock scope early, in writing. For a commission, confirm the report's boundaries — period, sub-themes, which turns are in — before reading. For a submission, the cover letter sets the scope you are claiming.
• Negotiate, don't capitulate, on coverage asks. If a referee or editor wants an added literature, assess whether it fits the spine; propose where it goes or explain why it is out of scope — a review cannot grow without bound and must stay in the strand's word envelope (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).
• Surface conflicts of interest. If a likely referee is a central author you must critique, tell the editor — PiHG/SAGE expect COI disclosure, and it protects both the process and you.
• Respect the schedule. A commissioned progress report runs against an issue/series timeline; a submitted review against the normal SAGE cycle. Confirm deadlines and plan backward.
• Keep a coverage ledger. Maintain a short, sharable record of what is in scope and why (and what was deliberately excluded), so when the editor or a referee asks "why not X?", you answer with a decision already made.

Checklist

• Route identified (commissioned report vs. submitted review) and editor relationship calibrated accordingly
• Scope agreed in writing (report boundaries for a commission; cover-letter scope for a submission)
• Anticipated the seven review-referee questions (coverage, fairness/reflexivity, argument, accessibility, appraisal, conceptual-not-empirical, scope/strand)
• Coverage-expansion asks evaluated against the spine and the strand's word envelope before agreeing
• Conflicts of interest (referees who are reviewed authors) flagged to the editor
• Attribution and appraisals double-checked, knowing reviewed authors may referee
• Timeline (series/issue or SAGE cycle) calibrated (volatile — confirm)
• A plan for which asks to accept vs. push back on, with reasons

Anti-patterns

• Treating a commission as a blank check — invited progress reports are still edited for critical quality and scope
• Treating a submission as collaborative — it is competitive peer review on significance and contribution
• Accepting every "please also cover…" until the review loses its spine and overruns the strand limit
• Mischaracterizing a reviewed author's work when that author may be your referee
• Hiding a conflict of interest instead of disclosing it (SAGE/COPE expect disclosure)
• Asserting current editors / timeline / process from memory rather than the live SAGE pages

Output format

【Route】commissioned progress report / submitted review-or-intervention
【Editor relationship】collaborative-series / competitive-peer-review — calibrated? Y/N
【Scope agreement】boundaries (period/sub-themes/traditions) locked in writing or claimed in cover letter? Y/N
【Referee anticipation】coverage / fairness / argument / accessibility / appraisal / conceptual / scope — prepared each? Y/N
【Coverage asks】evaluated against spine + strand envelope; accept/push-back plan? Y/N
【COI】reviewed-author referees flagged to editor? Y/N
【Timeline】series/issue or SAGE cycle calibrated? Y/N · 待核实
【Source status】current editors/process re-confirmed on SAGE pages? Y/N
【Next step】→ proghg-submission (SAGE ScholarOne preflight)