--- 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 - [ ] The paper makes exactly one sharp, original point, stated in the opening lines. - [ ] The argument (or counterexample/reply) is valid and complete on its own without a treatise. - [ ] The single most pressing objection is anticipated and dispatched. - [ ] The piece is within the strict length limit, with no padding or long literature review. - [ ] The manuscript is anonymized and follows the current citation style. - [ ] For a reply, the target paper/position is identified precisely up front. ## 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 ```text [Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason) [Target] Analysis [Type] short article / counterexample / reply / discussion note [Thesis] [Argument/engagement] [Top risk] [Official items to re-check] [Re-route suggestion] ```