---
name: phg-submission
description: 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.
---

# 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

- [`./templates/checklist.md`](./templates/checklist.md) — copy-paste preflight checklist
- [`./templates/manuscript_template.md`](./templates/manuscript_template.md) — review-essay skeleton in PiHG shape
- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — official SAGE/PiHG URLs behind every fact