---
name: mind-review-process
description: Use to understand how Mind evaluates a submission — triple-anonymous peer review, quality as the sole criterion, the role of expert referees, and what it means for a journal that receives over 800 submissions a year. Sets expectations and shapes the paper to survive review; it does not contact editors.
---

# Review Process (mind-review-process)

Knowing how Mind screens and decides lets you pre-empt the failure modes before submitting. Mind runs a
**triple-anonymous** process, takes **quality as the sole criterion**, and receives **over 800
submissions a year** judged by expert referees. The selection is severe; the paper must be decisive on
its own terms.

## When to trigger

- Before submitting, to stress-test against the way Mind judges papers
- Interpreting a decision letter and setting realistic expectations
- Understanding why anonymization is non-negotiable here
- Deciding whether your piece is competitive at a high-rejection venue

## How Mind review works

1. **Triple-anonymous.** Author identity is **not revealed to editors or referees** unless and until
   the paper is accepted. This is stronger than ordinary double-anonymous review — neither the handling
   editor nor the referees know who you are. Prepare the manuscript accordingly (see `mind-submission`).
2. **Preparation is a gate.** Papers **not prepared for anonymous refereeing will not be read** —
   revealing acknowledgements and self-identifying references must be removed.
3. **Expert referees.** Editors seek advice from a large pool of expert referees, associate editors,
   and the Editorial Board. Assume the referee knows the debate and the strongest objection to your
   argument better than you do.
4. **Quality is the sole criterion.** No area, no style, no school is excluded — but the paper must be
   excellent: a significant thesis, a sound argument, the best objection answered.
5. **Severe selection.** With **>800 submissions a year**, most are declined. A paper that merely
   "adds something" rarely clears the bar; the argument must be decisive.

## Shape the paper to pass

- Make the **thesis and its significance** unmistakable early (avoids "not significant enough").
- **Answer the strongest objection visibly** — the referee *is* that objection (see
  `mind-objections-and-replies`).
- Engage the **best version** of the target view, not a strawman (see `mind-literature-positioning`).
- Keep technical material **glossed informally** so a non-specialist referee follows it.
- **Anonymize fully** — a non-anonymized manuscript may simply not be read.

## Anti-patterns

- Submitting a manuscript that reveals the author (it will not be read)
- A competent-but-incremental paper at a venue where quality is the sole, severe criterion
- Leaving the strongest objection for the referee to raise
- Targeting a strawman version of the view you oppose
- Assuming breadth of topic substitutes for a sharp, defended thesis


## Review-risk pass for Mind

Use this as a second-pass capability check. First lock the target thesis, argument map, objection sequence, and dialectical payoff; then test whether the manuscript addresses analytic-philosophy reviewers who expect a precise thesis, live objection, argument structure, and contribution to an active debate.

- **Primary move:** Turn likely reviewer objections into a ledger with response evidence, manuscript location, and the decision-maker who must be convinced first.
- **Decision ledger:** return `claim / evidence / blocker / next edit` rows so the next pass can patch the manuscript directly.
- **Neighbor test:** compare against Philosophical Review for broader top philosophy, Nous for analytic breadth, Ethics for normative/political theory; if the neighboring outlet has the stronger audience claim, recommend re-routing before polishing.
- **Verification floor:** before submission-ready advice, re-open `resources/official-source-map.md` for volatile rules and name the one unresolved fact that could change the recommendation.

## Output format

```
【Anonymization】prepared for triple-anonymous review? [Y/N]
【Significance】thesis clearly significant, not incremental? [Y/N]
【Strongest objection】answered in the paper? [Y/N]
【Target view】engaged at its best? [Y/N]
【Realistic outcome】reject / revise / (rare) accept
【Next】mind-submission (or mind-revision-and-response if decided)
```

## Supplementary resources

- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — triple-anonymous policy, quality-only criterion, >800 submissions/year