Transparency & Reflexivity for a Review (proghg-transparency-and-reproducibility)

When to trigger

• The synthesis is settled and you must show how the literature was read and selected, and from where
• A referee is likely to ask "how did you decide what to include?" or "from what standpoint do you read this?"
• You want the apparatus and positionality to pre-empt the predictable "you omit literature X" or "this is partisan" pushback
• You are unsure what "transparency" means for a critical review that runs no empirical analysis

What "transparency" means in a critical review with no primary data

A PiHG review reports no new empirical data of its own, so the usual replication-package machinery (raw data, estimation code, a reproducibility README of your analysis) does not apply to the review's claims. PiHG sits in a qualitative / critical-geography tradition, so transparency is scholarly apparatus and reflexivity, not a PRISMA flow tally. It bites on three things you do produce:

1. Scholarly apparatus — accurate, complete citation and attribution so a reader can trace every claim about the literature to its source.
2. Positionality / reflexivity — a brief, honest account of the standpoint from which you read the field, where your theoretical and political commitments shape the appraisal. This is expected in critical human geography, not optional.
3. A coverage account — a short narrative of how you gathered and selected the literature (the saturation log from proghg-literature-synthesis), so "comprehensive" is a defensible claim rather than a boast.

Distinguish this from primary-research reproducibility: you are not defending an identification strategy of your own (there is none); you are making your reading of others' work traceable and your standpoint explicit.

The coverage account (narrative, not PRISMA-by-default)

Carry forward the saturation log into a brief, sharable record. A formal PRISMA flow is usually inappropriate for a critical review — PiHG is not a systematic-review tally journal — but a transparent narrative of the search is increasingly expected:

Use a formal PRISMA flow only if the piece is explicitly a systematic review of a tractable evidence base; confirm whether the topic warrants it on the author pages (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). For most PiHG reviews the narrative account is the right form.

Positionality and ethics

• State your standpoint briefly where it shapes the appraisal — theoretical commitments, disciplinary location, and (where relevant) political stance. Reflexivity is a strength a referee expects, not a confession.
• Attribute scrupulously. Credit originators of concepts and turns; mis-attribution in a state-of-the-art review is a serious fault (and the reviewed authors may be your referees).
• Follow publication ethics. PiHG/SAGE follow COPE standards and expect adherence to ICMJE-style authorship and disclosure norms; declare funding, conflicts, and any AI-tool use, and ensure all listed authors meet authorship criteria (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).

Checklist

• Every claim about the literature traces to an accurate, complete citation
• Concept/turn attribution credits originators (reviewed authors may referee)
• Coverage account documented (databases, dates, terms/traditions, selection logic, saturation)
• Tradition coverage and prior PiHG reports accounted for in the search record
• Positionality / reflexivity stated briefly where the standpoint shapes the appraisal
• PRISMA used only if a genuine systematic review warrants it; otherwise a transparent narrative (format 待核实)
• COPE/ICMJE ethics met: funding, conflicts, AI-tool use disclosed; authorship criteria met
• Coverage account ready to pre-empt "why did you omit X?" and "is this partisan?" at review

Anti-patterns

• Claiming "comprehensive coverage" with no documented search to back it
• Importing primary-research replication machinery for claims the review does not itself estimate
• Forcing a PRISMA tally onto a critical/theoretical review where it does not fit (PiHG is not a systematic-review journal)
• Hiding the author's standpoint where it plainly shapes the reading (reflexivity is expected here)
• Mis-attributing a concept or turn to a popularizer over its originator
• Skipping COPE/ICMJE disclosures (funding, conflicts, AI use)

Output format

【Apparatus】every literature claim traces to a complete, accurate citation? Y/N
【Attribution】concepts/turns credited to originators? Y/N
【Coverage account】databases + dates + terms/traditions + selection logic + saturation documented? Y/N
【Tradition + prior reports】tradition coverage and prior PiHG reports recorded? Y/N
【Positionality】standpoint stated where it shapes the appraisal? Y/N
【PRISMA】formal flow only if a systematic review warrants it; else narrative? Y/N · 待核实
【Ethics】COPE/ICMJE — funding, conflicts, AI use disclosed; authorship met? Y/N
【Next step】→ proghg-editor-strategy (commissioned report vs. submitted review) → proghg-submission