proghg-tables-figures

Tables & Figures for a Review (proghg-tables-figures)

When to trigger

• The synthesis is done and a cross-subfield reader needs to see the debate at a glance
• A set of competing positions would be clearer as a table than as prose
• The conceptual framework would land better as a diagram
• You are tempted to paste a regression table or a map of original data — but this is a review, not an empirical paper

The exhibit types a PiHG review actually uses

PiHG exhibits organize and map scholarship; they do not present the author's own data or estimation. PiHG publishes few exhibits and prizes the conceptual one. The workhorses:

Building a credible debate-mapping table

• Compare like with like. Group positions that address the same question; never put incommensurable framings in one column as if they answered the same thing.
• Carry the tradition and the limit. A tradition column plus a "what it reframes / its limit" column lets the reader weigh a row without re-reading the works.
• Self-contained captions. A PiHG exhibit is read on its own by a cross-subfield geographer; the caption states what the table shows, how to read a row, and the key works.
• Source every cell. Each entry traces to a work in the evidence matrix; an unsourced claim in a state-of-the-art review is indefensible.

The conceptual figure is PiHG's signature

Because the readership spans subfields, the framework figure carries disproportionate weight: it is what a geographer from another area remembers and reuses (and what gets reproduced in syllabi). Invest in one diagram that renders the spine cleanly — a taxonomy of framings, a genealogy of turns, a concept map, or a scales diagram — so a reader who recalls nothing else can reconstruct the subfield's conceptual structure from it. Confirm current figure specs, colour, and resolution on the SAGE author pages (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).

No original empirical exhibits

PiHG does not publish original empirical results or detailed cases, so do not import primary-paper exhibits:

• No regression tables, descriptive-statistics tables, or model output of your own analysis.
• No maps or figures presenting your original fieldwork data — that signals an empirical paper sent to the wrong venue.
• If a figure from a reviewed work is central, prefer a re-drawn synthesis figure (your own panel placing several positions on common conceptual axes) over copying one study's exhibit. If you reproduce an original figure, attribute it and secure any permission SAGE requires (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).

Checklist

• Each exhibit organizes scholarship (no original-estimate or original-data output)
• Debate-mapping table rows ordered by framework cells; only comparable positions share a column
• A tradition column and a "what it reframes / limit" note accompany each position
• The conceptual figure renders the spine and is restate-able from memory by a non-specialist
• Any genealogy/timeline stays conceptual (turns, not a data series)
• Captions are self-contained (what / how to read a row / key works)
• Every cell sources to a work in the evidence matrix
• Figure specs / permissions confirmed against current SAGE author pages (volatile)

Anti-patterns

• Pasting a regression or descriptive-statistics table of the author's own analysis — a review reports no new results
• A map or figure of the author's original fieldwork data (signals an empirical paper at the wrong venue)
• A debate-mapping table that pools incommensurable framings into one column
• Position columns with no tradition/limit note (every reader then asks "how should I weigh that?")
• A decorative figure that does not encode the framework — wasting the review's signature exhibit
• Exhibits whose captions require the body text to be intelligible (fails the cross-subfield reader)

Output format

【Exhibit set】<list: debate-mapping tables / conceptual figure / genealogy>
【Debate-mapping table】rows by framework cell; comparable positions only? Y/N
【Tradition + limit column】present for every position? Y/N
【Conceptual figure】renders the spine; restate-able from memory? Y/N
【No empirical exhibits】no original regression/data/fieldwork output? Y/N
【Sourcing】every cell traces to the evidence matrix? Y/N
【Specs/permissions】confirmed on SAGE author pages? Y/N · 待核实
【Next step】→ proghg-writing-style (weave exhibits into the synthesis prose)