--- name: mind description: Use when targeting Mind or deciding whether an analytic philosophy manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit as a leading generalist journal in the analytic/UK tradition, the argument-rigor and originality bar, dialectical-engagement expectations, house style (full-length articles plus critical notices) and double-blind norms, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics. --- # Mind (mind) ## Journal positioning Mind, published by Oxford University Press for the Mind Association, is a leading generalist journal in the analytic tradition with deep roots in the UK philosophical scene and a long historical strength in **philosophy of mind, language, and logic**, alongside metaphysics, epistemology, and value theory. Its defining expectation is a **rigorous, original argument** that advances a live debate: a clearly stated thesis, a valid and carefully defended line of reasoning, and decisive engagement with the strongest opposing positions, developed at the length the argument requires. Mind also publishes critical notices — substantial, argument-driven engagements with important books — distinct from short book notes. A competent survey, a small variation on a familiar move, or a paper that dodges its best objections is a poor fit. 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 Mind author instructions. ## When to trigger - The author names Mind for an analytic-philosophy article and wants a fit/framing check. - An argument must be developed and tightened — thesis, structure, and engagement with the strongest objections — to clear a leading generalist bar. - The author is choosing between Mind and another big generalist venue, or weighing a critical notice versus a full article. - The author needs Mind's originality/rigor bar and desk-reject heuristics. ## Scope & topic fit - Philosophy of mind and philosophy of language, including their intersections with cognitive science where the contribution is philosophical. - Logic and the philosophy of logic, and formally informed metaphysics and epistemology. - Metaphysics and epistemology broadly, including foundational questions of method. - Value theory — ethics, metaethics, and political philosophy — argued with analytic rigor. - History of philosophy when it makes a live philosophical (not merely exegetical) contribution. - Critical notices: sustained, argumentative engagement with a significant recent book. ## Method & evidence bar - The contribution is an **original thesis defended by a valid, carefully structured argument**; the central claim and its dialectical stakes are stated early and clearly. - The strongest objections and rival views are engaged head-on and answered, not deflected. - Distinctions are drawn precisely, key terms are defined, and the argument's logical form is transparent with independently motivated premises. - Scholarly engagement is current and fair, locating the contribution in the live literature without padding. - Examples, counterexamples, and thought experiments do genuine argumentative work. - Formal apparatus, where used, is deployed to sharpen rather than ornament the argument. ## Structure & house style - Long full-length analytic article with a sustained argument, or a substantial critical notice; re-check current length expectations and article types on the live guide. - Thesis and roadmap appear early; sections build the argument step by step; objections-and-replies are integral, not appended. - Citation follows the journal's current style; footnotes carry qualifications and secondary dialectic. - Double-blind review: anonymize the manuscript (self-citations and acknowledgements) per current policy. - Prose is precise and economical; the central claim should remain legible to generalist analytic readers outside the immediate sub-area. ## 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 Mind page you checked. - Search the live site for "Mind journal submission guidelines" (Oxford University Press / Mind Association) and follow the current version. - Re-check article types (articles, discussions, critical notices), length expectations, and the 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 - [ ] There is a single, clearly stated, original thesis with explicit dialectical stakes. - [ ] The argument is valid and each premise is independently motivated and defined. - [ ] The strongest objections and rival positions are engaged and answered, not deflected. - [ ] Engagement with the current literature is fair, current, and non-padding. - [ ] The manuscript is anonymized and follows the current citation style. - [ ] The article type (full article vs. critical notice) matches what the manuscript actually is. ## Common desk-reject triggers - A survey or a small variation on a familiar move with no original advance. - An argument that ignores or only gestures at the strongest objections. - Imprecise theses, undefined key terms, or an opaque logical structure. - Formalism that adds apparatus without adding argumentative force. - Narrow sub-area interest with no general philosophical stake (better at a specialist venue). - A book review mis-pitched as a critical notice, or exegesis with no live contribution. ## Re-routing decision - Equally strong generalist analytic article → `the-philosophical-review` / `nous` / `the-journal-of-philosophy`. - Moral, political, or normative-ethics focus → `ethics` / `philosophy-and-public-affairs`. - Short, focused argument or counterexample → `analysis`. - Aesthetics / philosophy of art → `the-journal-of-aesthetics-and-art-criticism`. - Argument about historical method or the epistemology of inquiry → `history-and-theory`. ## Output format ```text [Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason) [Target] Mind [Area] [Thesis] [Argument/engagement] [Top risk] [Official items to re-check] [Re-route suggestion] ```