| name | phg-topic-selection |
| description | Use 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. |
Topic Selection & Review-Worthiness (phg-topic-selection)
PiHG's first gate is not "is this interesting?" but "is this review-worthy for the discipline?" The
journal publishes critical reviews and theory, not empirical work, so a topic earns a PiHG essay only
if there is a substantial, contested literature whose state a synthetic argument can usefully re-order
— and if the essay would matter beyond one sub-field's specialists.
When to trigger
- Choosing what to review, or narrowing a broad interest into an essay
- Unsure whether a literature is big and live enough to sustain a review
- A colleague said "this is just a summary" or "why does the field need this now?"
- Deciding whether the piece is a review article or a scoped Progress Report
The review-worthiness test (all four must hold)
| Criterion | Pass condition | Fails when |
|---|
| Volume | A large enough body of work exists to synthesize, not just cite | A handful of papers — too thin for a review |
| Liveness | The debate is active and unsettled now | A closed, historical, or consensus topic |
| Contest | Real disagreement or unresolved tension to adjudicate | Everyone already agrees; nothing to argue |
| Stakes | Re-ordering it matters beyond the niche | A parochial corner only insiders care about |
If any fails, the topic is not yet a PiHG review — narrow it, wait for the literature to mature, or send an
empirical study elsewhere.
The "so what has changed?" clock
PiHG reviews are timely. A review-worthy topic usually has a trigger: a burst of new work, a
methodological turn, a real-world shift, or a concept that has quietly drifted. State why now — a
review with no answer to "why this, why now?" reads as a textbook chapter, not an intervention.
Scope discipline (the cap is short)
A PiHG review is ~4,000–8,000 words inclusive of endnotes — short for a survey. Choose a scope you can
synthesize into one argument, not everything ever written. A tightly-scoped essay with a clear thesis
beats an exhaustive catalogue every time.
- Prefer a contested seam between literatures over a whole sub-field.
- Prefer a concept whose meaning is drifting over a topic with no conceptual tension.
- If the scope needs 15,000 words to cover, it is two essays or the wrong scope.
The empirical-trap check (PiHG-specific)
The most common misfit is an empirical study dressed as a review. Ask: if you deleted every "we
find / the data show," is there still a review? If the piece's spine is your own findings, PiHG is the
wrong venue — this is a study, and it belongs at an empirical journal.
Worked micro-example (illustrative)
Weak: "A review of research on gentrification." (whole sub-field, no tension, no "why now")
Review-worthy: "Gentrification research has split into a rent-gap camp and a consumption camp that no
longer argue with each other; a decade of platform-mediated displacement now cuts across both — this
essay asks what the split has hidden and what platform displacement reveals." (contested seam + trigger
+ stakes + synthesizable scope)
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- Reviewing a settled or consensus topic ("there is nothing left to argue")
- Choosing a scope so broad it can only be catalogued, not argued
- A review with no "why now?" — reads as a textbook, not an intervention
- Smuggling in an empirical study and calling it a review
- Confusing "under-reviewed" with "review-worthy" — some corners are small for a reason
Output format
【Topic】the contested literature/seam in one line
【Review-worthy?】volume / liveness / contest / stakes [Y/N each]
【Why now】the trigger
【Scope】what is in / out, and can it be synthesized in ~8,000 words?
【Not empirical?】passes delete-the-data test? [Y/N]
【Next】phg-theory-building
Supplementary resources
