phg-argument-synthesisUse when turning a mapped literature into one cumulative argument for a Progress in Human Geography (PiHG) review essay — synthesizing many sources into a claim the field could not see from any one of them. Builds the synthetic spine; it does not gather sources (see phg-literature-positioning) or ma
phg-contribution-framingUse when framing the forward-looking contribution of a Progress in Human Geography (PiHG) review essay — the portable "so what / what next" agenda the field can carry forward. Frames and stakes the contribution; it does not make the critical move (see phg-critical-intervention) or polish prose (see
phg-critical-interventionUse when making the critical move at the heart of a Progress in Human Geography (PiHG) review essay — naming what the field misses, mistakes, or takes for granted, and re-ordering the debate. Sharpens the critical turn; it does not build the synthetic spine (see phg-argument-synthesis) or frame the
phg-literature-positioningUse when mapping and entering a large, contested literature for a Progress in Human Geography (PiHG) review essay — defining the corpus, its camps and debates, and where your intervention sits. Positions the essay in the field; it does not build the synthetic argument (see phg-argument-synthesis).
phg-rebuttalUse when responding to a Progress in Human Geography (PiHG) decision letter (major/minor revision) — building a point-by-point response to the editor and referees that strengthens the review's argument and coverage. Structures the response and revisions; it does not fabricate literature or claims.
phg-review-processUse when anticipating how a Progress in Human Geography (PiHG) review essay will be judged — the double-anonymous review model, decision categories, and the desk-reject triggers specific to a review journal. Explains what to expect; it does not draft the manuscript or the response letter.
phg-submissionUse 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
phg-tables-figuresUse when designing the conceptual exhibits of a Progress in Human Geography (PiHG) review essay — typologies, framework diagrams, concept genealogies, and synthesis tables that do argumentative work. For a review journal these are conceptual, not data graphics. Designs exhibits; it does not build th
phg-theory-buildingUse when building the conceptual apparatus that organizes a Progress in Human Geography (PiHG) review essay — the load-bearing concept that carries the argument and re-orders a literature. Sharpens the concept; it does not gather sources or run analyses (PiHG publishes no empirical work).
phg-topic-selectionUse when deciding whether a topic is review-worthy for Progress in Human Geography (PiHG) — a large, live, contested literature with real disciplinary stakes, not a gap-filling empirical study. Tests fit and scope; it does not build the argument or gather sources.
phg-workflowUse when starting or navigating any Progress in Human Geography (PiHG) manuscript and you need the entry point. Routes to the right sub-skill based on lifecycle stage and whether the piece is a free-standing review article or a commissioned Progress Report. It dispatches; it does not draft content.
phg-writing-styleUse when polishing a Progress in Human Geography (PiHG) review essay to house style — the argument-forward review voice, SAGE Harvard referencing, the ~8,000-word inclusive cap, ~100-word unstructured abstract, and 5+ keywords. Polishes prose and format; it does not build the argument.