agentsclimarketplace
Sign in

Phg submission

Skill brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/Progress-in-Human-Geography-Skills/skills/phg-submission

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for Progress in Human Geography (PiHG) via SAGE Track — genre selection, double-anonymous preparation, the ~8,000-word inclusive cap, the ~100-word abstract, 5+ keywords, SAGE Harvard style, ORCID, and ethics declarations. Final checks; it does not draft content.From its SKILL.md

Install
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill phg-submission

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

SKILL.md

5.6 KB, ~1.3k tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it

Submission Preflight (phg-submission)

The last check before pressing submit on SAGE Track. PiHG is double-anonymous and has a short, inclusive word cap, so the two most common avoidable failures are an under-anonymized manuscript and an over-length one — plus the fatal misfit of sending an empirical study to a review journal. Verify volatile specifics on the official pages before relying on them (检索于 2026-07-16；以官网为准).

When to trigger

  • "Submitting tomorrow" — last pass before upload
  • Unsure which files/metadata SAGE Track expects
  • Confirming the essay is a review (not an empirical study), within cap, and anonymized

Process facts (verify volatile items on the official page)

  • Owner / publisher: SAGE (PiHG founded 1977 at Edward Arnold).
  • Portal: SAGE Track (ScholarOne-based), via the SAGE journal page.
  • Genre: free-standing review article (open submission) vs. commissioned Progress Report / PiHG Lecture (invited — do not submit cold). Confirm the piece is a critical review, not an empirical study — PiHG does not publish empirical results or detailed cases.
  • Review model: double-anonymous peer review. Anonymize the manuscript; provide a separate title page.
  • Length: review article ~4,000–8,000 words, incl. endnotes, excl. bibliography. (待核实 — confirm current cap)
  • Abstract & keywords: unstructured abstract ~100 words; minimum 5 keywords. (待核实)
  • Style: SAGE Harvard author–date referencing, consistent throughout.
  • ORCID: SAGE commonly requests ORCID for the submitting author (verify whether mandatory). (待核实)
  • Ethics: COPE member; follow SAGE research-integrity and generative-AI policies; disclose per policy. Positionality/competing-interests statements where relevant.
  • Fee: no submission or publication fee stated for standard articles; open-access options handled by SAGE. (待核实)

Preflight checklist

Genre, fit & length

  • Piece is a critical review / theory essay, not an empirical study (delete-the-data test passed)
  • Genre correct: review article (open) vs. Progress Report / Lecture (invited only)
  • Within ~8,000 words including endnotes (excl. bibliography); count computed over the whole essay
  • One-line statement of the intervention/contribution ready for the cover letter

Abstract, keywords & style

  • Unstructured abstract ~100 words, stating the intervention (not just the topic)
  • 5+ specific keywords present
  • SAGE Harvard referencing, consistent; reference list complete

Anonymity (double-anonymous)

  • No author names, affiliations, or acknowledgments in the manuscript
  • Self-citations neutralized; no "as we argued in…"
  • File metadata stripped (document properties, comments)
  • Separate, non-anonymous title page prepared as a distinct file

Metadata, exhibits & compliance

  • ORCID ready for the submitting author (verify requirement)
  • Conceptual exhibits meet format specs (vector, grayscale-legible) — see phg-tables-figures
  • Cover letter states the genre, the intervention, and fit with PiHG
  • Competing interests / funding / AI-use disclosed per SAGE policy; positionality where relevant
  • For a structured/systematic review: search documented (databases, dates, queries) if applicable

The misfit trap (PiHG-specific)

The fastest rejection is an empirical paper sent as a review. Before upload, re-confirm: the essay's spine is an argument about a literature, its conclusion exceeds any single cited work, and there is no findings section. If any of these fails, this is the wrong journal — do not submit.

File set for SAGE Track (verify current requirements)

  • Anonymized main manuscript (no identifiers, clean metadata)
  • Separate, non-anonymous title page (authors, affiliations, ORCID, acknowledgments)
  • Conceptual figures/exhibits at required resolution (vector where possible)
  • Cover letter (genre, intervention, fit); any supplementary material; disclosures per policy

Anti-patterns

  • Sending an empirical study "framed as a review" (top desk-reject cause)
  • Overrunning the short cap once endnotes are counted
  • Leaving author identifiers in text, self-citations, or file metadata
  • Topic-only abstract; fewer than 5 keywords; non-Harvard citations
  • Submitting an uncommissioned "Progress Report"

Output format

【Genre / fit】review article / Progress Report(invited) · is-a-review-not-a-study? [Y/N]
【Word count】total incl. endnotes vs. ~8,000 cap (excl. bibliography)
【Abstract / keywords】~100-word intervention abstract + 5 keywords? [Y/N]
【Anonymized】text + self-refs + metadata clean? [Y/N]
【Style / ethics】SAGE Harvard + ORCID + disclosures? [Y/N]
【Next】await decision → phg-review-process (what to expect) → phg-rebuttal on revision

Supplementary resources

What ships with it: 2 files

6.4 KB alongside SKILL.md

templates/

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 325,949. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.