---
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

- [ ] The literature is large, live, contested, and has stakes beyond the niche
- [ ] There is a clear answer to "why this review, why now?"
- [ ] Scope is narrow enough to synthesize into ONE argument within the cap
- [ ] The piece is a review, not an empirical study in disguise (delete-the-data test)
- [ ] A generalist human geographer, not only specialists, would care

## 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

- [`../../resources/exemplars/library.md`](../../resources/exemplars/library.md) — landmark review/theory works whose scope and stakes are worth studying
- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — genres, scope, and what PiHG does not publish