---

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