proghg-editor-strategy

Editor Strategy (proghg-editor-strategy)

When to trigger

• You are writing a commissioned progress report and coordinating with the editors on scope/series
• You have submitted a review or intervention and want to anticipate referee expectations
• The editor has asked you to expand, cut, or rebalance coverage
• You are calibrating how PiHG's two routes (commissioned vs. submitted) differ in the editor relationship

Who you are working with at PiHG

PiHG is edited by a team of editors (检索于 2026-06：editor-in-chief Noel Castree, supported by additional editors and an international Editorial Advisory Board；以官网为准 — re-confirm, editors rotate), with SAGE handling production. Your relationship differs sharply by route:

Route	Editor relationship	Acceptance logic
Commissioned progress report	collaborative; the editors invited you as the subfield's reporter and want the series to succeed	still edited for critical quality and scope, but not competing in an open submission pool
Submitted review / intervention	standard peer review; the editors decide on referee advice	assessed on significance, coverage, fairness, and conceptual contribution; competitive

Know which you are in: a progress report is a coordinated, short, recurring artefact; a submitted review is a competitive, free-standing argument.

How review differs for a review article

PiHG referees do not check an identification strategy or replicate results — there are none of the author's own. They evaluate the piece as a critical review:

Reviewer question	What they are really checking
Is the coverage complete across traditions?	the coverage account from proghg-literature-synthesis / proghg-transparency-and-reproducibility — can they name an omitted literature or tradition?
Is it fair and reflexive?	even-handedness across traditions; no self-promotion or partisanship (proghg-comprehensiveness-and-balance)
Is there a real conceptual argument?	the spine vs. an annotated bibliography or neutral roundup (proghg-organizing-framework)
Is it accessible?	can a geographer from another subfield follow it (proghg-writing-style)
Are the appraisals fair and correct?	does the author characterize each work's contribution and limits accurately
Is it conceptual, not empirical?	no original data or detailed cases smuggled into a "review"
Is it the right scope/strand/length?	fits the chosen strand and word envelope; not a monograph

Referees of a PiHG review are often the reviewed authors themselves — the people whose work and tradition are being appraised will read how you appraised them. This makes balance and accurate attribution strategic, not just ethical.

Scope negotiation with the editors

• Lock scope early, in writing. For a commission, confirm the report's boundaries — period, sub-themes, which turns are in — before reading. For a submission, the cover letter sets the scope you are claiming.
• Negotiate, don't capitulate, on coverage asks. If a referee or editor wants an added literature, assess whether it fits the spine; propose where it goes or explain why it is out of scope — a review cannot grow without bound and must stay in the strand's word envelope (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).
• Surface conflicts of interest. If a likely referee is a central author you must critique, tell the editor — PiHG/SAGE expect COI disclosure, and it protects both the process and you.
• Respect the schedule. A commissioned progress report runs against an issue/series timeline; a submitted review against the normal SAGE cycle. Confirm deadlines and plan backward.
• Keep a coverage ledger. Maintain a short, sharable record of what is in scope and why (and what was deliberately excluded), so when the editor or a referee asks "why not X?", you answer with a decision already made.

Checklist

• Route identified (commissioned report vs. submitted review) and editor relationship calibrated accordingly
• Scope agreed in writing (report boundaries for a commission; cover-letter scope for a submission)
• Anticipated the seven review-referee questions (coverage, fairness/reflexivity, argument, accessibility, appraisal, conceptual-not-empirical, scope/strand)
• Coverage-expansion asks evaluated against the spine and the strand's word envelope before agreeing
• Conflicts of interest (referees who are reviewed authors) flagged to the editor
• Attribution and appraisals double-checked, knowing reviewed authors may referee
• Timeline (series/issue or SAGE cycle) calibrated (volatile — confirm)
• A plan for which asks to accept vs. push back on, with reasons

Anti-patterns

• Treating a commission as a blank check — invited progress reports are still edited for critical quality and scope
• Treating a submission as collaborative — it is competitive peer review on significance and contribution
• Accepting every "please also cover…" until the review loses its spine and overruns the strand limit
• Mischaracterizing a reviewed author's work when that author may be your referee
• Hiding a conflict of interest instead of disclosing it (SAGE/COPE expect disclosure)
• Asserting current editors / timeline / process from memory rather than the live SAGE pages

Output format

【Route】commissioned progress report / submitted review-or-intervention
【Editor relationship】collaborative-series / competitive-peer-review — calibrated? Y/N
【Scope agreement】boundaries (period/sub-themes/traditions) locked in writing or claimed in cover letter? Y/N
【Referee anticipation】coverage / fairness / argument / accessibility / appraisal / conceptual / scope — prepared each? Y/N
【Coverage asks】evaluated against spine + strand envelope; accept/push-back plan? Y/N
【COI】reviewed-author referees flagged to editor? Y/N
【Timeline】series/issue or SAGE cycle calibrated? Y/N · 待核实
【Source status】current editors/process re-confirmed on SAGE pages? Y/N
【Next step】→ proghg-submission (SAGE ScholarOne preflight)