brycewang-stanford PiHG Workflow Router (phg-workflow)
The orchestrator for a Progress in Human Geography submission. Figure out the stage and the genre, then send the user to the matching skill. PiHG is the discipline's review and theory flagship — the router's first job is to make sure the piece is a synthetic, agenda-setting review, not an empirical study wearing a review's clothes. PiHG does not publish empirical results or detailed cases.
When to trigger
- Starting a new PiHG piece and unsure where to begin
- Mid-project and unsure which skill applies next
- Deciding whether you are writing a review article (open submission) or a Progress Report (commissioned)
- Unsure whether the topic is review-worthy at all (route to
phg-topic-selection) - Returning with a decision letter (route to
phg-rebuttal)
First question: is this even a PiHG piece?
Run the fit gate before routing anywhere else.
| Check | Pass condition | Route if it fails |
|---|---|---|
| Not empirical | The core is an argument about a literature, not new data or a single case | this is the wrong journal — stop |
| Review-worthy | The literature is large, live, and contested, with real stakes | phg-topic-selection |
| Has an intervention | You can name what the field is getting wrong and how you re-order it | phg-critical-intervention |
| Synthetic | The sources add up to one argument, not a list | phg-argument-synthesis |
If "not empirical" fails — the piece would be unchanged if you deleted the argument and kept the data — PiHG is the wrong venue; consider an empirical geography journal instead.
Second question: which genre?
| Genre | What it is | Route |
|---|---|---|
| Review article | Free-standing, unsolicited critical review (~4,000–8,000 words) | full default order below |
| Progress Report | Commissioned critical survey of a sub-field's recent work | same craft, but scope to the report's remit; confirm with the editor |
| PiHG Lecture / commentary | Invited; formats vary | confirm current practice on the SAGE page (phg-submission) |
Progress Reports are invited by the editors — you cannot submit one cold. If you have a report commission, the same skills apply, scoped to the agreed remit.
Routing map (stage → skill)
Is the topic review-worthy? → phg-topic-selection
What concept organizes it? → phg-theory-building
Where does it sit in the field? → phg-literature-positioning
Do the sources add to one arg? → phg-argument-synthesis
What is the critical move? → phg-critical-intervention
What is the forward agenda? → phg-contribution-framing
Do the exhibits do synthesis? → phg-tables-figures
Does it read as PiHG? → phg-writing-style
Ready to submit? → phg-submission
How will it be judged? → phg-review-process
Got an R&R / decision? → phg-rebuttal
Default order
topic-selection → theory-building → literature-positioning → argument-synthesis → critical-intervention → contribution-framing → tables-figures → writing-style → submission → review-process → rebuttal
Iterate: most essays loop theory ↔ synthesis ↔ intervention several times before writing-style.
Anti-patterns
- Treating PiHG as a place to publish an empirical study "framed as a review" — it is not
- Writing an annotated bibliography and calling it a review (no cumulative argument)
- Submitting something billed as a Progress Report without a commission
- Reviewing a settled, niche literature with no live debate or stakes
- Overrunning the short (~8,000-word inclusive) cap because a review "needs to be comprehensive"
Output format
【Genre】review article / Progress Report (commissioned) / lecture-commentary
【Stage】topic / theory / positioning / synthesis / intervention / framing / exhibits / writing / submit / review / rebut
【Fit gate】not-empirical? review-worthy? has-intervention? synthetic? [Y/N each]
【Route to】phg-<skill>
【Why】one line
【Then】the next skill after that
Supplementary resources
../../resources/external_tools.md— systematic-review, bibliometric, and reference tooling for building a corpus../../resources/official-source-map.md— official SAGE/PiHG URLs behind every fact in this pack