brycewang-stanford 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