Mind Literature Positioning

---
name: mind-literature-positioning
description: "Use when positioning a Mind article against the existing philosophical literature so the thesis reads as a genuine move in a live debate. Mind readers are expert across analytic philosophy, so the paper must engage the canonical and current statements of the view it targets, not a strawman. Stakes the contribution; it does not write the literature section for you."
category: marketing-and-growth
source_repo: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
source_path: "Mind-Skills/skills/mind-literature-positioning/SKILL.md"
source_url: https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/blob/HEAD/Mind-Skills/skills/mind-literature-positioning/SKILL.md
---


# Literature Positioning (mind-literature-positioning)

A Mind paper earns its place by making a **move in an ongoing debate**. Positioning is not
throat-clearing — it shows the reader (and the referee) the exact disagreement you enter and why your
thesis matters. Mind referees are specialists; engaging a weak or dated version of your target view is
the fastest route to rejection.

## When to trigger

- Drafting or revising the introduction and the "what I add" paragraph
- A reader said you "attack a strawman" or "ignore the obvious reply already in the literature"
- You need to distinguish your thesis from the closest existing positions
- Choosing which figures and papers actually *define* the debate you enter

## How Mind wants the literature engaged

1. **Enter a live debate, not a citation pile.** Identify the specific disagreement or open puzzle your
   thesis addresses, and the works that *constitute* it (the canonical statement plus the strongest
   current defenders).
2. **Target the strongest version.** Engage the best, most charitable formulation of the view you
   oppose — ideally its proponents' own words. Refuting a weak version persuades no one.
3. **Name the gap precisely.** Not "little has been said" — say what is conflated, assumed without
   argument, or left unexplained, and why your thesis fixes it.
4. **State your move as a position in the debate.** "X is standardly held because of argument A; A
   fails / equivocates / overgeneralizes; so X should be replaced by X′."
5. **Place the closest competitor.** Identify the nearest existing view and say exactly how yours
   differs — referees will ask "isn't this just Y's position?"

## Engaging across the field (Mind is general)

| If your thesis is in… | also engage… |
|-----------------------|--------------|
| a narrow technical debate | the broader question it bears on, so a generalist sees the stakes |
| philosophy of language/logic | the metaphysical or epistemic upshot, where relevant |
| philosophy of mind | the empirical-adjacent work only as it bears on the philosophical claim |
| history of philosophy | the contemporary debate the reading illuminates, where applicable |

## Anti-patterns

- A "literature dump" with no organizing disagreement
- Attacking a strawman or an outdated formulation of the target view
- Hiding the nearest competing position, or claiming false novelty ("first to argue")
- Self-citation that breaks anonymity (Mind is triple-anonymous — see `mind-submission`)


## Positioning pass for Mind

Use this as a second-pass capability check. First lock the target thesis, argument map, objection sequence, and dialectical payoff; then test whether the manuscript addresses analytic-philosophy reviewers who expect a precise thesis, live objection, argument structure, and contribution to an active debate.

- **Primary move:** Map incumbent conversation, unresolved tension, this manuscript's delta, and the sibling-venue omission a referee might notice.
- **Decision ledger:** return `claim / evidence / blocker / next edit` rows so the next pass can patch the manuscript directly.
- **Neighbor test:** compare against Philosophical Review for broader top philosophy, Nous for analytic breadth, Ethics for normative/political theory; if the neighboring outlet has the stronger audience claim, recommend re-routing before polishing.
- **Verification floor:** before submission-ready advice, re-open `resources/official-source-map.md` for volatile rules and name the one unresolved fact that could change the recommendation.

## Output format

```
【Debate】the live disagreement / puzzle you enter
【Key works】the 3–6 that define it (canonical + strongest current)
【Target view】the best version of what you oppose
【Gap】what is conflated / assumed / unexplained
【Move】how your thesis changes the debate
【Closest competitor】and how yours differs
【Next】mind-thesis-and-argument
```

## Supplementary resources

- [`../../resources/external_tools.md`](../../resources/external_tools.md) — PhilPapers, SEP, JSTOR for finding the defining works
- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — Mind scope and quality-only criterion

---

**Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `Mind-Skills/skills/mind-literature-positioning/SKILL.md`