| name | analysis |
| description | Use when targeting Analysis or deciding whether a short, focused philosophy manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's identity as a home for crisp, single-point articles, counterexamples, and replies; the argument-rigor bar; the brevity-and-focus house style and double-blind norms; official-submission re-check; and desk-reject heuristics. |
Analysis (analysis)
Journal positioning
Analysis, published by Oxford University Press for the Analysis Trust, is the home of short,
focused philosophical articles and notes — its identity is brevity and a single sharp point.
A canonical Analysis piece makes one crisp argument, presents a decisive counterexample, or
mounts a tight reply to a recent paper, and it does so in a few pages rather than a sustained
treatise. Its defining expectation is a clear, valid, original argument compressed to its
essentials: state the point, make it, dispatch the obvious objection, and stop. A long,
multi-part article that develops many threads is a misfit here no matter how good — Analysis
rewards the one-idea paper that earns its space. This skill is a fit / venue-selection /
re-framing aid. It does not replace the journal's current submission guidelines. Before
submitting, re-check the live Analysis author instructions.
When to trigger
- The author names Analysis for a short philosophy note or article and wants a fit/framing check.
- A paper has one sharp idea, counterexample, or reply that should be compressed to Analysis's
brevity-and-focus form.
- The author is deciding whether a contribution belongs as a short Analysis note or a full-length
article elsewhere.
- The author needs Analysis's brevity/single-point bar and desk-reject heuristics.
Scope & topic fit
- Crisp original arguments across core analytic philosophy — metaphysics, epistemology, mind,
language, logic, and value theory — where one point can stand alone.
- Decisive counterexamples that refute or seriously pressure a published claim.
- Tight replies, rejoinders, and discussion notes engaging a specific recent paper or position.
- Sharp distinctions or puzzles introduced and motivated in a few pages.
- Short formal results or observations where the formalism delivers a single clear payoff.
- Any sub-area, provided the contribution is genuinely self-contained and concise.
Method & evidence bar
- The contribution is one original point defended by a valid, tightly compressed argument;
the claim is stated immediately and the stakes are obvious.
- The argument is complete on its own terms — a counterexample actually bites, a reply actually
answers — without requiring a treatise to land.
- The single most pressing objection is anticipated and dispatched; exhaustive objection-handling
is neither expected nor space-permitting.
- Distinctions and key terms are defined with precision; the logical form is transparent.
- Engagement is targeted: cite the specific paper or position being advanced or refuted, not a
broad survey.
- Brevity is load-bearing: every paragraph earns its place; nothing is padding.
Structure & house style
- Short note or short article built around a single point; re-check the current length limit and
note/article types on the live guide — brevity is enforced.
- The point appears in the opening lines; the piece moves directly to the argument with no long
literature review.
- Objections-and-replies, where present, are minimal and integral — the one objection worth
raising, answered.
- Citation follows the journal's current style; footnotes are sparing.
- Double-blind review: anonymize the manuscript (self-citations and acknowledgements) per current policy.
- Prose is maximally economical; for a reply, identify the target paper precisely up front.
Official-submission checklist
- Before giving submission-ready advice, read
../../resources/source-basis.md and
../../resources/official-source-map.md; start from the press/society anchors, then cite the
current Analysis page you checked.
- Search the live site for "Analysis journal submission guidelines" (Oxford University Press /
Analysis Trust) and follow the current version.
- Re-check the strict word/length limit and note/article types, and any abstract requirement.
- Confirm the citation/style format and anonymization for double-blind review.
- Re-check the journal's policy on prior presentation/preprints, simultaneous submission, and
AI-use disclosure.
- If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.
Pre-submission self-check
Common desk-reject triggers
- A long, multi-part treatise developing several threads — the classic Analysis misfit.
- More than one point, or a single point buried under survey-style scene-setting.
- A counterexample that does not actually bite, or a reply that does not actually answer.
- Padding, lengthy literature review, or apparatus disproportionate to one short point.
- Imprecise theses or undefined key terms in a piece with no room to recover.
- A contribution that genuinely needs full-article length to succeed (route to a generalist venue).
Re-routing decision
- The idea genuinely needs full-length development →
the-philosophical-review / nous / the-journal-of-philosophy.
- A sustained argument in the UK/analytic tradition →
mind.
- Moral, political, or normative-ethics focus needing room →
ethics / philosophy-and-public-affairs.
- Aesthetics / philosophy of art →
the-journal-of-aesthetics-and-art-criticism.
- Argument about historical or inquiry-level method →
history-and-theory.
Output format
[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Analysis
[Type] short article / counterexample / reply / discussion note
[Thesis] <the single point in one line>
[Argument/engagement] <is it one crisp, valid, self-contained point that fits the brevity bar?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection — usually: too long / more than one point>
[Official items to re-check] <strict length limit / note type / citation style / anonymization / preprint policy>
[Re-route suggestion] <if it needs full-article length, a better-matched venue>
